ML20198E475

Transcript of 921124 Briefing by OGC on Regulatory Issues & Options for Decommissioning Proceedings in Rockville,Md. Pp 1-90

ML20198E475
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/1992
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9212070229
Download: ML20198E475 (94)

Text

.

Mf4444%%%%dfnMt%W6%%%%%%%%%ffff%;tfdgffffggg g'

l-

At! SMIT'AL TO:

V _ Document Control Oest. 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:

The Public Document occm

// / 30/9 A ATE:

2 i

j-PCH:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branen g

3 3

A Attacned are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i

document (s).

They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and 3

t placement in the Public Document Room.

No other oistribution is recussu.t or j

recuireo.

6tu / M /lcr__ w b rlL M.

La * -

c u

eeting-Titie:

w l

(h t! ~ S E n,u k /?l n et & t)

G s

e a

eeting Date:

/// 4/9A Open X

Closec ll E

v 5

i j

' tem Oescription*:

Cecies Advanced DCS C

to POR Cg

(

5

• 8 I

12 E

h g

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 e:

1 ili 2.

C 5

1..

g

e 4.

h C

3.

E 9212070229 921124 3

PDR 10CFR pg g

PT9.7

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

[

gi C&R Branch files the original transcriot, with attacnments, witheut SECY 4)

[

L gi pacers.

.3l dj<7 l

i' a

AEHHHHHEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHKKBEKKKHb1tnwfKhWKKKhWhWhWhW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION iki,13 l BRIEFING BY OGC ON REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING PROCEEDINGS Location:

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND h3(3' NOVEMBER 24, 1992

?S903 90 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC, COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

~

^

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on November 24, 1992 White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is

}

not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may-be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 1 as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the commission may authorize.

4

)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18tR$

1323 RHoOf ISLAND AYtHUt. H.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGToH. D.C.

20003

' (202) 232-6600

i j

1 i :.

rWITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i l

BRIEFING BY OGC ON REGULATORY ISSUES i

AND OPTIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING PROCEEDINGS i

i c.

I-PUBLIC MEETING i

j Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North

.l'

-Rockville, Maryland i

l Tuesday, November 24,_1992 1

i The Commission met in.open

session, i

l pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,- Ivan-Selin, Chairman, presiding.

t COMMISSIONERS-PRESENT:

IVAN SELIN, C1. airman of'the Commission j

KENNETH C.eROGERS, Comn.issioner i

FORREST J.-REMICK, Commissioner-JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner;

-E. GAIL de PLANQUE,-Commissioner 1

d 4

i i

- NEAL R. GROSS I

~ COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -

-(202) 234 4433

-4.,-,

.. - - +

..--....,,,,m.,.,--,,v.,-,,---..-+..,m

..-e.,v,

-w4-

,m.,

+

v-,,;.+-,y+r..v-3

,v

..w~.+

,ew.e,-,.+--.,+i,,,

_. =,

1 2

STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

i WILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel JOHN C, HOYLE, Acting Secretary MARTIN'MALSCH, Deputy General Counsel, Licensing and Regulations MITZI YOUNG, Office of the General Counsel JOHN PARTLOW, Associate Director for Projects, NRR DOROTHY MICHAELS, Office of the General Counsel m

5 1

J J

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

. ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2p33 W

(202) 234-4433

~

3 1

P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2

10:00 a.m.

I 3

CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Last spring we spent a 4

lot of time trying to figure out how to handle the 5

Shoreham decommissioning questions that arose, a

6 number of interesting questions.

We found that we 7

were making what I hope are sensible but ad hoc 8

decisions that appeared to have implications for more 9

generic approaches to decommissioning.

It's clear 10 that there will be a number of other decommissionings 11 either before or at the end f the license period in 17 the next number of years.

j 13 So, when we went through the Shoreham 14 experience, the Commission requested the General 15 counsel to provide a paper discussing lessons learned.

16 Because the premature plant shutdowns are somewhat 4

17 likely,'

important that the Commission identify it's 18 any gaps in our decommissioning regulations and in our 19 practices and to revise them if necessary. Therefore, 20 we asked the General Counsel to prepare the briefing 21 that we'll receive today.

He's here to discuss his 22 views concerning appropriate procedures and 23 requirements for decommissioning and to provide his 24 office's recommendations for changes to our 25 regulations and, if appropriate, to our operating NEAL R. GROSS CCURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

4 1

practices.

2 We're looking forward to hearing what you 3

and your team have to say about this important topic, 4

Mr. Parler.

i 5

MR. PARLER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

6 Chairman and members of the Commission.

7 First of all, I'd like to introduce the j

8 people that are here with me.

On my right is Mr.

9 Malsch, the Deputy, who had a large input to this 10 paper, particularly with regard to the analytical 11 sections dealing with the recommendations.

Ms.

12 Dorothy Michaels, on Mr. Malsch's right, assisted in 13 that regard.

On my left is Ms. Mitzi Young from our 14 Hearing Division who helped me tremendously.

I asked 15 and the EDO agreed to have someone from his staff here l

l 16 to answer any technical questions or any other l

17 questions you might ask, that might be asked, and also l

18 detailed questions about the process.

i l-19 Mr. Chairman, yon have referred to the l

20 circumstances under which this project was initiated i

j and the directions to us in an SRM of June the 10th of 22 this year.

Before that SRM was issued, I,

as the 23 accountable official, at least in the Office of the l

l 24 General Counsel, had some concern as to what was going 25 on.

Those concerns were concerns that I could not NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 5323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

l (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433

5 1

explore fully at the time because of the separation of 2

functions

rule, which we discussed yesterday in 3

another

context, that apply to the Shoreham 4

proceeding.

The staff was taking certain positieris 5

about the decommissioning rule and what was required, A

6 on the one hand, and the advisors to the Commission 7

were seeing things a little differently on the other.

I asked myself, "What is it that these folks ' are 9

reading?

Are they reading the same thing?

Is the 10 guidance clearer, unclear?" et cetera.

So, I was very 11 anxious to find out what was going on and I initiated 12 this effort a little bit before the staff requirements 13 memorandum was put out.

14 Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, and it was l

15 certainly disclosed in the paper and will be further 16 amplified during the briefing, that there is a gap in 17 our decommissioning rule as far as prematurely 18 decommissioned plants are concerned, the process that 19 should be followed.

The statement of considerations 20 that I will talk about in a little more detail later 21 does say that the prematurely decommissioned plants-22 are covered, but that's about it.

23 We also will recommend or make some 24 recommendations which the Commission may or may not 25 choose to accept.

If they accept them, then we will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33

. ~. _ _

1 have_to go to work on putting out the rules.

2 What I would like to emphasize, however, 1

3 at the' outset, to put all of this in context, is that F

4 life in the decommissioning area.-. af ter Shoreham is 5-still going on.

Adtions have been taken by the 6

commission in the decomnissioning area.

I see as 7

recently as a couple days ago that the commission j

B approved a decommissioning plan, 'an amendment of f

9 license. for the Fort _ St. Vrain nuclear generating p

i 10 station.

But that approval'was carefully qualified,-

i 11 at least generically, tnat the steps or the actions 4

l-12 that's been set forth in the

_particular l

13 decommissioning plan may or may not require advanced l

14 agency approval in.the context of~other individual 15

cases, that the other individual cases will be 16 evaluated on a case by case basis.

17 Similarly, action was taken in the San f

18 Onofre Unit 1.

There was a continued possession only 19 license that was issued which will _not become

)

20 effective until after the facility is permanentlygshut h

21

-down and theclicensee has certified-that all-.the fuel 22

' hr.s been removed from the' reactor vessel-and _ that' this 23 was taken even though'defueling-will not be completed i.

24 until sometime-next year.

In the spring of next-year 25 when the POL -amendment becomes effective, it will-4 NEAL R. GROSS I'

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

]

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N Vv.-

- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (2 1 234-4433

.-e

-e-,-

,+w..n-e,-

e

.m, w

v

.-4+

mer,w sw w rsv

,-+-en-

+we-.~-a m---.n e

i

{

7 j*

1 remove the licensee's authority to operate the fg 2

reactor, which is sorething that is very important and 1

i 3

certainly was very important in Shoreham to try to i

4 arrive a*- that point, that understanding where you L

have the license that is changed from a Part 50 1

l 6

license to authorizes a licensee-to operats the 7

facility to a

Part 50 license that in effect j

{

l 8

contemplates not operation ever again but l

9 decommissioning.

i 10 The POL in San onofre would notablish the i

l 11 basis for issuing varioya reliefs and exemptions from 12 the requirements of the operating license which are i

i 13 not necessary to ensure safety in the permanently

-j f

14 defueled mode and the licensee is required to submit 1

l 15 a decommissioning plan for the unit no later than two i

e i

16

-years after the permanent cessation of operations, I

j 17 which presur Sly is next spring.

l la a point I'want to make is despite what i

19 will be said hereafter about gaps,-et cetera, the 1

20

-process can still work on = case by case basis, of 21 course,'another important thing to keep _in mind when 1

22-we discuss. things such as_this is that-the_ objective 23 of what weld in areas such as this is to assure the 24 protection of the public health and safety, the common f

25

' defense and security,- to assure that our environmental L

NEAL R. GROSS -

COVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433.

'..,_.-___-....._______._......_u,-.-._._.__,a

l 8

4 i

i 1

respot ibilities are met and to make sure that we have i

2 a process which is open, the deciolons that we make l

3 are rational, that they're made on the public record i

i

)

4 and that we give interested members of the public an j

5 opportunity to participate in the process, whether j

6 that opportunity is in the form of hearings, public l

7 meetings or responding to their petitions, giving the i

8 people an open process, the opportunity to know what's 9

going on that could affect them and to try to put the

[

l 10 various health and safety risks and environmental i

11 questions and concerns into perspective.

I think that

?

4 12 under the system that we have, that is being done.

i j

13 Now, that's the context.

In order to 4

I-14 understand our recommendations, I would like to give 15 you an overview and then I will say something very 16 generally about the recommendations and Mr. Malsch 17 will discuss-the analytical details for the l

18 regulations.

19 The analytical details, they are somewhat

[

20 complex.

Fog level is kind of high because -- not i

21 necessarily because of the problems that we're dealing 22 with which are rather straightforward, but because we 23 have to get into such things'as whether you havo to l

24 have a hearing, what kind-of-hearing,:whether the 25 hearing has to be before the fact, after the fact, et-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000$

402) 2344433 1-O-g-t--W7wp - yp-g-939yq, py*wg-.---

p-9w.

p

-e w

,.m i % p,p gy m

_gaw+

.pai.egy-gy. gne -pyy4wpp

.q--qm.p2. hay,.#

s-4-.Wypgrhr-

.ey

-.' p p gp,

qy*"

9 1

cetera, and the discussion which takes place and the 2

analysis is in a framework of the regulation, the 3

decommissioning rule that we have and the statement of 4

consideration which accompanied that rule when it was 5

put out in 1988.

6 Now for the background, for the regulatory 7

background.

We all like, as I've heard you all say as 8

recently as a materials licensing meeting, to have a 9

good principal framework for regulatory decisions and 10 that, of course, is in accord with the principles of 11 good regulation.

Even though I tried to make the 12 point that we can make on a case by case basis the 13 prematurely shut down decisions, the point is also 14 that we do not have a set of regulations which 15 directly address that problem and here is why.

16 The decommissioning rule really 17 contemplates what will happen during the normal 18 expiration of life of a plant.

Decommissioning is 19 defined in the rule to removing a facility safely from 20 service and to reduce th0 residual radioactivity to a 21 level that permits release of the property for 22 unrestricted use and terminstion of the license.

I'm 23 not saying that's what it should be, but that's what 24 the rule says.

The rule - I'm talking about the text l

l 25 of the rule now.

The text of the rule provides for a l

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

i 10 l

1 premature preliminary decommissioning plan.

Each

~

2 licensee

shall, about five years prior to the

{-

l 3-projected end of the operation of the activity, submit i

4 a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost l.

5 estimate for decommissioning, an up-to-date_ assessment i

6 of the major technical factors that could affect 7

planning for der.e issioning.

Incidentally, the 8

financial aspects 5,nat are associated with premature 1

9 decommissioning is - not. covered in this particular l

10 study.

That's covered in a separate study.

If my i

j 11-recollection is correct, I believe that the staff has-12 submitted a paper on that subject to the Commission.

13 The rule also contemplates an application 14 for termination of the license.

Any licensee may l

15 apply to the commission for authority,to surrender a l.

16 license voluntarily and to decommission the facility.

P 17 Then for any facility that permanently-ceases i

i 18 operation after July the 27th,'1988, the application 19 must be made - within ' two years following permanent a

{

20 cessotion of: operations, in no case--later than-one j

21 year prior to the: expiration of the operating license.

22 Then, each application for termination of 23-

_the license must be accompanied or proceeding by-_a 24 propo' sed - decommissioning - plan.

The. decommissioning 25 plan, at least as - this non-technical person would NEAL R GROSS

.- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNBERS

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.-

T i

(202) 2W433 -

. ASHINGTON, D C. 20005

- (202) 234 4433 W

._._.._,_._a;._

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

11 1

understand the rule, was a very important part of the 2

decommissioning rule.

It was in the decommissioning i

3 plan that if demonstrates that the decommissioning 4

will be performed in accordance with the regulations i

5 and will not be inimical to the common defense and 6

security or the health and safety of the public, and 7

after notice to interested persons, on the basis of 8

that pl'an, the commission will approve the plan 9

subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems 10 necessary and. appropriate and issue an order 11 authorizing the decommissioning.

The rule does not 12 say, I don't believe, if my recollection is correct, 13 too much about whether you would have a hearing, what.

l 14 kind of a hearing, the timing of the hearing.

Perhaps 15 most important for purposes of this discussion, the 16 rule doesn't say anything at all about a premature 17 decommissioning plan.

18 However --

f 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Bill, if I could ask l

20 a question.

Does it say anything in the normal case l.

21 about such a-thing as a possession only license?

MR. PARLER:

No, it does not.

No, sir.

22 23 Now, in the statement of considerations,

. hat I will do is, to set'the background, talk about 24 w

25

the statement of consideration and then about the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,

~

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20C05 --

(202) 234 4433

._.,._-.,.._.,,m.

4 la 1

Commission guidance in Shoreham and that will lead us 2

into the regulations.

I'm sorry, the recommendations 3

that we are proposing.

4 In the statement of considerations there 5

is a statement, I guess, in response to a comment that 6

was received on the proposed rule that the normal 7

lifetime as well as those which may be shut down 8

prematurely, those plants are covered by the rule.

i 9

But as I've already said, there's nothing in the 10 regulations about premature shutdown.

As I just said 11 in response to the question, a possession only license 12 is not defined anywhere either in the decommissioning 13 regulation.

l 14 However, the statement of considerations 15 mentions that decommissioning, and I'm reading this 16 correctly, it may sound like some of these things are j

17 in conflict, but old Parler is not confused.

I may 18 not sound exactly clear at all times, but this is the 19 way to do this, folks.

20 The statement of considerations mentions 4

21 that the decommissioning will be conducted under a 22 possession only license, and it goes on to say, 23 "Normally a Part 50 license authorizing possession 24 only will be issued prior to the decommissioning order 25 to confirm the non-operating status of the plant and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

13 1

to reduce some requirements which are important only 2

for operation prior to finalization of the 3

decommissioning plans."

i l

4 Then there's a reference to a Regulatory 5

Guide 1.84 which was put out in 1974, some 14 years 6

before the decommissioning rule, which includes a 7

description of the information to be submitted in an 8

application for a possession only license.

9 MS. YOUNG 1.86.

10 MR. PARLER:

1.86.

Ms. Young just told me 11 it was 1.86.

12 There is also a provision in the statement 13 of considerations that subsequent license amendments 14 will be used as appropriate, presumably to relax the l

15 operating license requirements as the process unfolds 16 toward the goal of decommissioning, which the rule, I 17 failed,to say, provides three approaches.

One of the 18 approaches without-great enthusiasm, decontamination, 19 decon, I suppose, SAFSTOR and entomb.

The one that's l

20 alluded to without great enthusiasm is entomb.

21 The statement of considerations also says l

22 that the overall approach to decommissioning must be 23 approved shortly after the end of operation under the 24 rule rather than under an amendment possession only 25 Part 50 license -being issued without plans f or '.the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000S (202) 234-4433.

14 1

ultimato disposition.

That's what it says.

2 The statement of considerations says also 3

that the primary means of protecting the health and 4

safety of the public and workers during 5

decommissioning is through implementation of the 6

decommissioning plan. The statement of considerations 7

also says that because decommissioning, including any 8

change from the original operating license, requires t

9 Commission approval, there are no loopholes which 10 would allow adverso impacts to the public or the 11 environment.

12 There's a section in the decommissioning 13

rule, 50.82(f),

which clearly indicates that the 14 license ultimately is terminated by a determination of 15 the Commission after the decommissioning has been 16 performed and it has been adequately demonstrated that 17 the facility and site are suitable for release to 18 unrestricted use, which may occur some considerable 19 number of years in the future.

I suppose if it's the 20 decon approach, it could be as early as a little less 21 than six, as I understand it.

If it's SAFSTOR, it 22 could be around 60 and if it's some combination of 23 entomb or something, if it gets much over 100 or 24 around 100 then people start being concerned, at least 25 as far as the rule is concerned.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

15 1

Is that generally correct?

Yes.

2 110w to the part of the statement of 3

considerations that is perhaps the most -- well, it 4

certainly is of some significance in light of the i

5 Shoreham experience.

A commenter asked, "Well, what 6

can we do prior to the approval of the decommissioning 7

plan?"

At least as I understand the rule, the 8

decommissioning plan seemed to be an important part of 9

the step toward decommissioning.

The statement of j

l 10 considerations refers to Section 50.59 which permits 11 the holder of an operating license to carry out 12 certain activities without prior Commission approval 13 unless these activities, as we all know, involve a 14 change in technical specifications or an unreviewed 15 safety question.

16 And going on, the statement of 17 considerations say that the amendments contained in 18 the decommissioning rulemaking cannot alter a

19 licensee's capability to conduct activity under 50.59, 20 whether they're talking about the flexibility or at 21 least some flexibility that a licensee presumably 22 would have under 50.59 to move in the direction of 23 decommissioning-prior to the submission and the 24 approval of the decommissioning plan, 25 The statement of consideration

says, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

j 16 1

"Although the Commission must approve the 2

decommissioning-alternative and major structural 3

changes tc; ra419 active components of the facility or

)

s 4

other major changes, the licensee may proceed with 5

some activities, such as decontamination, minor 6

component disassembly, shipment and storage of spent 7

fuel, if these activities are permitted by the 8

operating license and are 50.59.

These matters Will 9

be further discussed in a revision to Regulatory Guide 10 1.86 under consideration."

11 In a

broader general

context, the 12 statement of-considerations says, among other things, 13 that the radiation levels to which workers will be 14 exposed will be sir'lar to the levels of major 1

15 maintenance activities conducted during the operatien.

16 It says-that if total exposures prove to be higher 17 than estimated, this could be-factored into decisions 18 concerning the alternatives and approaches in the J

19 future.

There's a reference made, I believe, to the 20 standards in Part 20 that would have to be observed.

21 The statement of considerations also 22 refers to the general generic environmental impact 23 statement that also accompanied the decommissioning 24 rulemaking and the statement of considerations says, 25 "This generic environmental impact statement, GEIS, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WALHINGToN p C. 20005 (202) 23444M

1 I

17 1

shows the difference in impacts among the basic j

2 alternatives for decommissioning is small and the dose 3

impact of decommissioning is small whatever i

4 alternative is chosen in comparison with the impact 4

5 associated from 40 years of licensed operation.

The 6

relative impacts are expected to be similar from plant 7

to plant so that a site specific environmental impact 8

statement will result in the same conclusions es a i

9 GEIS with regard to the methods of decontamination."

10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS Bill, could I ask 11 a question back on an earlier point?

You touched on 12 one of the key issues that we'll need to think about.

13 in the context of your recommendations.

The rule 14 itself contains a definition of decommissioning.

The 15 statement of considerations = language that you cited 16 contains some discussion that might-arguably be 17 inconsistent with or difficult to reconcile with the.

18 language in the rule itself.

19 The Reg. Guide 1.86 which existed at the 20 time, a 1974 version of the reg.-guide and perhaps I 21 can draw upon Mr. Partlow's recollection as well, was 22 it intended in either the definition in 50.3 or in the -

23 description in the statements of-consideration.'th'at 24 what we were trying to capture and allow or disallow 25 in drawing the line between what you could do and what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 2000$

(202) 234 4433

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

18 i

i you couldn't do prior to approval of a decommissioning 2

plan, was it intended that we were to essentially 3

incorporate the then exir

'g Reg.

Guide 1.86 4

approach?

Is that reflected in the language that 5

we've got either in the definition or in the rule?

6 MR. PARTLOWt I'm afraid I-just can't 7

answer that, Commissioner. I first became involved in 8

the Shoreham point and specific guidance from ' the 9

Commission sort of took over in the shoreham case and 10 I'm not familiar with the history before that.

11-MR. PARLER:-

I'm not familiar - with the 12 history either.

I was not involved yet, but I can 13 tell you what I think is a result of _ a rather 14 intensive look at the-thing for the last couple.of 15 days.. That is that the framers of the rule apparently 16-contemplated that the guidance in the 1.86 as updated i

17 would be the sort of guidance that when we get around j

18 to our recommendation number one, that would be useful l

i 19 to flesh out the bare bones of the rule itself.

20 One of the points in the statement of l

L 21 considerations that-I went through a couple minutes 22 ago about the 50.59_ change procedures and not changing 23-major structural components, et cetera, is,;I believe, f

24-also in'the-regulatory guide.

25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.-

l-(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 -

(202) 234 4433-

....m,-._..-..

l t

19 l

l*

1 MS. YOUl1G:

If I could --

1 1

2 MR. PARLER:

Go ahead.

y,

3 MS. YOU11G:

-- add anything here, I didn't j

t j

4 participate-in the rulemaking, the decommissioning 5

rules in '88 either.

But my reading of the reg. guide t

6 and the statement of considerations which specifically 1

)

7 says that those activities that could proceed without j

8 approval of a decommissioning plan would be further 9

addressed in a revision to.the reg. guide, when you 10 look at the reg. guide, the most you get from that is j

11 that catch phrase, you're going to do major structural l

12 changes to radioactive components, but you should i

13 submit a decommissioning plan.

But you can do minor i

j 14 activities, components, move on things in-the absence 4

15 of such a plan.

That's about as far as the reg. guide l

16 gave you in terms.of illuminating the kinds of things 17 the 1988 rulemaking was talking about.

18 About the only thing different that I i

19 notice in reading the two together was that they 20 talked about in the reg, guide things like. removal of i

4

[

21 the pressure vessel or major. components of the primary l

22 system being the kinds of things that-you might need 6

23 approval of your decommissioning plan for.

But those L

24 things have never really been illuminated in any kind

)

25.

of further draft to the reg. guides.- I think a draft i

l NEAL R. GROSS i

i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f S?3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.Wc

_(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

l

J 1

30 i

l' at one time was prepared, but it didn't get any rather l

2 than the first or second cut, 3

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

That was actually 4

m y second question.

Is the June '74 reg. guide the i

j 5

e::isting operative guidance today?

Nothing else has i

d 6

been prepared to update that-reg.-guide?

7 MR. PARTLOWs That's correct.

Doctor

)

8 Weiss just told me that there was a draft -- there is l

9 a draft update of that regulatory guide to bring-it a

l 10 into consistency with the statement of 11 considerations, but-it hasn't! been issued and I can't i

12 tell you the exact status of that draft.

i 13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: The rule itself, as l

14 Mr. Parler indicated,. indicated that'that-reg. guide i

15 would be updated.-

16 MR. PARTLOW:-

Yes.

And apparently that i

l 17 effort did happen at some point.

l 18 MR. PARLER:

We do know that there is a i

l 19 difference as a result of intense-discussions about' 20' another subject..

21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:.Okay.

That's all 22' I have.at this point.

~23 MS. YOUNG:- Maybe that the experience-'in L

24

_Shoreham caused-some delay-in even trying to revise 25 that reg. guide since there was a lot of dispute over i.

NEAL R.' GROSS l.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND A'E N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON,0 C 2.

.6 (202) 2344 433

1 21 i

1 the activities that could receive without approval of 4

2 a plan.

i,

l_

3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Yes. I raised that i

4 question because when we get to your recommendation on j

l i

i 5

this point it does seem to me that it is fully I

6 consistent with the definition of decommissioning l

7 itself in the rule.

The statements of consideration, 8

the language-on this point, it does seem to me at f

9 least they complicate the matter in terms of what that I

10 says can and can't be done.

If we intended in turn in 11-the-definition-of decommissioning to actually 12 incorporate and rely upon the 1.86 approach, as has 1

13 been pointed out, that prohibits some things from i

14 being done as well that I think virtually make sense 15 to permit.

But we can get to that point when you get 16 to your recommendation.

17 PR. PARLER:

Wcil, what you..were saying 18 would help, I am sure.

19 Mr. Chairman, I have just one other point 20 to make about the guidance that the commission gave us 21 and to the public in. 1988, the statement of 22 considerations of the decommissioning rule.

It's 23 this.

In response to the concerns expressed by the 24-commenters, decisions on decommissioning would be made 25 without public input. The statement of considerations NEAL R. GROSS

' COURT !1CPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

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

32 1

says that the decommissioning involves an amendment of 2

the operating license and the NRC rules provide an 3

avenue for public input with respect to license 4

amendments.

5 So be it for the statement of i

6 considerations.

I would like to now mention briefly 7

the additional guidance that the commission give to 8

t..e subject in its decisions in the Shoreham d

9 proceeding and I will do that very quickly.

1 10 In what we call CLIs, commission License 11 Issuance 90-8 in October of 1990, the Commission 12 stated that its responsibility was to assure that the 13 licenseo complies with the requirements applicable to 0

14 the plan in its mode or condition and it refrained 15 from taking actions that would materially affect l

16 decommissioning methods, options or cause prior to the 17 approval of a decommissioning plan. That was also the 18

decision, if my memory is correct, in which the 19 Commission decided that it did not have to approve the 20 alternative of continued operation-as an NEPA 21 alternative.

That's a legal issue.

But I think even 22 though it is not settled judicially, is fairly 23 understood at least internally and I will not say 24 anything more about that.

I don't think that l

25 particular point is relevant much to anything that is NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINO10N. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

• Mv='"'fv y

e v

e wc-3 m

e

33 1

said here this morning.

2 Later on in January of 1991, in a CLI,

3 1, the Commission ruled that the Shoreham licensee's 4

request for a defueled operating license was a request 5

for a POL, that is a possession only license.

The 6

Commission said that the decommissioning rule will not 7

contemplate that in normal circumstances and a

8 possession only license would have to be preceded by 9

submission of any particular environmental information 10 or accompanied by any NEPA review related to 11 decommissioning.

The rules do not require the 12 submission of any preliminary or final decommissioning 13 information before a POL could issue.

14 Before that decision, the staff had sought 15 in a staff paper 90-421 guidance from the Commission 16 about three phases in processing decommissioning 17 plans.

One of the phases was what could be done 18 before the issuance of the POL.

Perhaps the -- as I 19 recall, the summary of what the staff was asking is 20 that the licensees would be required to preserve from 21 degradation systems needed for operation to comply 22 with the operating license requirements in the 23 regulations applicable to whatever mode or condition 24 the plant was in after shutdown.

But after issuance 25 of the POL, the licensees would have to maintain' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

j 34 4

1 staffing and systems necessary only for the safety in f

2 the shutdown mode or the defueled condition.

l 3

3 Af ter the approval of the decommissioning 4.

I j

4

plan, the licensees would have to conduct their l-5 activities in accord with the approved decommir,oning i

6 plan.

Until the decommissioning plan was approved,

}

7 the_ licensees were to refrain from any actions that 8

would affect the decommissioning methods or options or 9

increase the decommissioning pulse.

10 The Commission declined to provide the 11 additional guidance that the staff requested, but 4

12 indicated it would continue to consider POLS for l

13 prematurely decommissioned plants on a case by case

~

14

basis, which indeed, as I have indicated at the 15 beginning, they have~done in the cases of Fort St.

l 16 Vrain,-San Onofre, the two cases I mentioned, as well i

I 17 as other cases.-

I

~ issue of the significance of the j

18 The 19 approval of the decommissioning plan and what hearing.

3 20 rights, what kind of hearing,- the timing of the 21 hearing were. Issues before the ' Commission in ' the 22 Shoreham proceeding,.at which time the proceeding.was l

23, settled and the Commission did not have to address-t 24 those issues and provide further clarification'in the j~

25 area.

1-

.NEAL R. GROSS j

' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 2344433 WA$HINGTON, O C. 20006,-

(202) 234 4433 l

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

i

-t i

j 25

}

j*

1 That is the background that the 2

recommendations that we have should be viewed against 3

with emphasis again that although there are these i

l 4

perhaps gaps and ambiguities, that responsible

}

i

{

5 regulation is still taking place on a case by case 4

j 6

basis, i

7 The basic questions here are what can be i

8 done after the decision is made to decommission a f

l 9

nuclear power plant, which is primarily what. I'm 10 talking about.

Some of these issues might apply in i

11

-other contexts.

l' 12 During the discussion la preparing the 13

paper, I heard that the rule does not say when f

14 decommissioning starts or when operation ends and i

15 things such as that.

Well, some 'of - these issues

[

16 perhaps were made more difficult because they came to i

17 light in the Shoreham proceeding, which was heavily i

18 contested.

Different signals were being sent in the i

19 public record about whether the plant was supposed to 20 operate again or would operate again or would not.

l 21 Also, the utility, at least as I understand it, wanted i

22 to proceed along the decon route to have the 23

. decommissioning done expeditiously so that various 24 things-could be sent to a particular part of our

'25 country.

i l-

.i I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C,20005 (202) 234-4433-u

36 i

But opportunities -- how much could be 2

done without certain kinds of opportunities for public 3

participation had to be thought out every stop of the 4

way in the Shoreham proceeding, which was really a 5

very hard, severe test of the decommissioning rule and 6

without that it may well have been that some of these 7

ambiguities and gaps would not have surfaced, or at 8

least not as quickly as they had.

9 Now, we have seven recommendations for you 10 to consider.

They are policy choices.

If the 11 recommendations are adopted, there would have to be, 12 at least in most of the cases, implementing rules.

I 13 would suggest that the recommendations, at least for 14 the most part, would have to be considered as a 15 package. The first four of the recommendations really 16 deal principally with what can be done on the path of 17 decommissioning until the final decommissioning plan 18 is issued and approved, or submitted and approved, and 19 the decommissioning order issued.

20 The last three have to do with the 21 opportunities for public participation.

There is one 22 cautionary recommendation in the last three which kind 23 of like says that if the commission believes that 24 there should be opportunities for earlier 25 participation, that that should be considered.

These NEAL' R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

37 1

regulations are structured like this because we were g

2 unable to come up with a conclusion that thero's any 3

ideal time for public participation.

On the one hand, 4

no decommissioning at all could be allowed until the 5

decommissioning plan is approved.

According to our 6

understanding of what the Commission said in Shoreham, 7

that would not appear to be a viable suggestion.

8 Besides that, in view of the flexibilities that even 9

operating licensees have when they're in the operating 10 license mode to do certain things, the additional 11 flexibilities that they have under 50.59, that did not 12 appear to be a good point of departure.

That is 13 allowing nothing to be done until the decommissioning 14 plan is approved.

15 We also thought about the possibility of 16 consolidating or trying to have some sort of a process 17 under which amendments would be consolidated by the 18 applicant, but there didn't appear to be sufficient 19 background for us to conclude that that would be a 20 good idea, that would be the kind of' flexibility that 21 perhaps should be left up-to the licensee.

We also 22 discussed whether the possession only license should 23 be mandatory before th'e decommissioning can' proceed 24 beyond some prescribed point and were unable to come 25

-out with a convincing rationale as to why that should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPCRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

28 1

be the approach.

.:, z n4@g 2

So, these several recommendations that we 3

have provide -- if they are implemented at least when Q;eE i]pgj 4

rules are needed to implement them, they provide the 5

maximum flexibility on the one hand for 6

decommissioning to proceed in a responsible fashion, 7

but also providing for as much advance information to 8

the public as possible about the

plans, With 9

opportunities provided to the public to participate at 10 appropriate stages.

11 Whether or not there should be an 12 opportunity for a prior hearing, say prior to the 13 approval of the decommissioning plan, is really a 14 policy question.

I think the legal analysis which Mr.

15 Malsch will get into in further detail would conclude, 16 at least as a general proposition, that most of these 17 various steps could be evaluated so that the 18 conclusion could be reached that there's no 19 significant hazardous consideration involved.

20 That's a very general description of these 21 recommendations.

The first one very briefly says the 22 staff should provide guidance on the activities 23 permissible prior to the approval of the 24 decommissioning plan.

What I tried to describe about 25 the rule itself, the statement of considerations and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

.~.

29 1

the Commission guidance in the shoreham, the possible 2

need for such guidance I think should be apparent.

g 3

Also, the 1.86, the regulatory guide, as far as I 4

know, has not been updated.

5 We refer in the recommendation number one 6

to activities which would not foreclose the release of 7

a site for unrestricted use.

That's slightly 8

different from earlier formulations on that p61nt 9

which talh about not foreclosing alternatives. But if 10 one would recall, what I tried to say about what the 11 statement of considerations said about the insights 12 from the GEIS on the environmental concerns, et 13 cetera, is not readily apparent why the foreclosure of 14 alternatives would be a big concern as long as it was 15 not the foreclosure of the alternative of the release 16 of the site for unrestricted use.

17 Another factor would be that the approach 18 that we're talking about would not significantly 19 increase decommissioning costs or cause a significant 20 environmental impact not previously reviewed.

21 Translated, that means that if there's anything about 22 the site specific decommissioning that's not within 23 the boundaries, I guess, of the GEIS, that those l

24 things should be considered.

25 The next recommendation deals with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

30 1

50.59 benchmark.

When I referred to the 50.59 in the 2

statement of considerations, one of the things that I 3

did not mention but which is mentioned in our paper in 4

a footnote is that the 50.59 as written in our Part 50 5

regulations covers what can be done under a plant that 6

is cuthorized to operate.

The objective as I

7 understand it for the most part is to provide for 8

50.59 flexibility after the plant has decided to shut 9

down and not to operate again.

10 The recommendation number 3 tries to have 11 as its objective telling the licensee to inform us and 12 the public of its plans for the decommissioning 13 activities or what its game plan is at least in broad 14 terms up to the decommissioning plan.

We probably 15 would not include the sort of anolysis that one would 16 get in a decommissioning plan, but at least an attempt 17 to come up with a game plan would be a step in the 18 right direction of informing us and the publ2c as to 19 what's going on.

20 That is the recommendation which, as I've 21 just described, would perhaps also fall in the second 22 category of trying to enhance the opportunities for 23 public involvement and participation.

24 The fourth recommendation has to do with 25 the issuance of a confirmatory arder to make it clear NEAL R. GROSS.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCalBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 2000S -

(202;.. A433

31 1

that from a regulatory standpoint there has been a 2

permanent cessation of operation.

In other words, to 3

stop wondering what the licensee's intent is, stop 4

asking the question that the decommissioning rule does 5

not say when decommissioning begins and when operation 6

ends, but take the straightforward approach and 7

whenever the decision is made that the licensee has 8

decided to terminate operations, then to start 9

decommissioning to have that confirmed by a regulatory 10

' action such as a confirmatory order.

11 The recommendation number 5 --

12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Excuse me, Mr. Parler.

13 MR. PARLER:

Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN. SELIN:

I think it might be 15 useful if we stopped with these first four regulations 16 and discuss those because my own views on the hearing 17 will be very much affected on the views of my 18 colleagues on these first four.

They seem to be a 19 set, clean up the regulations to allow appropriate 20 practices, and the last three-depending on what's 21 decided there, would be how would the public --

22 MR. PARLER:

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, if we 23 stop at the first four, which I certainly would have 24 no problem with your approach, since Mr. Malsch's role-25 is to provide details to my broad brush treatment, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 ~

(202) 234 4433 j

4

_J

33 1

might want to hear from Mr. Malsch on the first four 2

before you go on.

3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

That would be fine.

But 4

I have one question.

It's a little bit about the 5

connection.

It is about the connection between the 6

first and the third recommendation.

Does the third 7

recommendation become moot under some outcomes of the 8

first recommendation?

In other words, depending on 9

what's decided on-what kind of guidance should be 10 given on what can be done in advance of the 11 decommissioning plan, does that sort of-affect the-12 disclosure --

13 MR.

PARLERt

Well, the recommendation _

l 14 number 3, as I understand it, would not become moot 15 because recommendation number 1 would provide generic 16 guidance across the board, perhaps an updating of the 17 Regulatory Guide 1.86.

We'd still want to know, I 18 would think', in the absence of a decommissioning plan 19 filed early on, what a specific licensee _'s game plan 20 will be.

23 CHAIRMAN-SELIN:- Okay.

22 Mr. Malsch, since you know what _ you're 23 going to say and we don't know what you're going.to 24 say, do you want to present the preemptive legal--

25 analysis or'do you want to let it come out as people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUES N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20005 -

(202) 2344433

33 1

ask you questions about the recommendations?

2 MR. MALSCH Why don't I just go over it 3

very briefly, a little bit of the substance behind 4

some of the recommendations.

Then we can go back to 5

the public hearing process.

6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Fine.

7 MR. MALSCH:

As Bill said, the focus of 8

the repcrrt is on the lessons learned from the Shoreham 9

proceeding with a view toward improving the process in 10 future cases.

Shoreham was a prematurely shut down il plant, but we had in mind here lessons learned not 12 only for future prematurely shut down plants, but also 13 lessons learned from plants that are shut down in the 14 ordinary course as well.

I also wanted to emphasize 15 that there are other issues that could be raised about 16 decommissioning that are not covered by this study.

17 For example, there have been questions raised about 18 the role of spent fuel sto' age in the decommissioning 19 process.

We're not addressing those.

20 The Commission has by a

separate 21 rulemaking addressed the matter of financial assurance 22 for decommissioning for prematurely shut down plants 23 and we haven't addressed that question.

24 Also, Shoreham was unique in that contrary 25 to what the drafters of the decommissioning rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 2000$

(202) 234 4433

,s

34 1

expected, the controversy in Shoreham was not over how 2

to decommission, but whether to decommission at all.

3 That led to some fairly unusual decisions in the 4

proceeding.

5 There were, for example, two Commission 6

decisions on whether the commission had to consider 7

operation as a NEPA alternative and at various stages 8

in the process the Staff made efforts to preserve 9

Shoreham for later operation, something which I think 10 the draf ters of the decommissioning rule never thought 11 would be a possibility.

12 But there are some lessons learned that 13 can be taken into account.

The most important one 14 is -- as Bill mentioned, one of them is what actions 15 can be done prior to approval of a decommissioning 16 plan approval.

The regs call for approval of a 17 decommissicning plan, but nothing in the regulations 18 prohibits anyone from decommissioning or even 19 commencing decommissioning prior to approval of the 20 decommissioning plan.

There is language in the 21 preamble to the rule that says that prior to de-plan 22 approval there could be minor component disassembly 23 and some decontamination in shipment of local waste 24 off site.

There is a suggestion in the preamble that 25 major structural changes shouldn't take place prior to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000$

(202) 234 4433

35 1

de-plan approval, but nothing in the rule itself which 2

contains any such prohibition.

3 Now, there is the option here of reading 4

the rule since it says one shall not -- since it call 5

for approval of a decommissioning plan, one might 6

infer from that that therefore you can't decommission 7

prior to approval.

But as I said, there's nothing in 8

the rule that says that.

It is an option that might 9

be considered.

For example, we could amend the rulas decommissioning and then 10 to define commencement e.

11 prohibit that from occurring prior to approval of the 12 decommissioning plan.

13 When we looked at that as a possibility, 14 it appeared to us that his was not strictly speaking 15 necessary for safety or environmental-reasons.

Among 16 other things, it would lead to a situation in which a 17 licensee of a plant permanuntly shut down could do 18 fewer things without NRC approval than a licensee of 19 a plant only temporarily shut down for, say, repairs 20 or refurbishment or maintenance.

1 at struck us as 21 kind of ar..malous.

Instead we decided to look at the 22 kinds of safety or environmental problems which 23 actions prior to approval of the decommissioning plan 24 might cause and to tailor the prohibitions to those 25 kinds of problems rather than simply recommending an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENtfi N W.

(202) 234 4133 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 034-4433

36 1

outright prohibition.

So, we focused on_the possible 2

safety or environmental issues that might arise in 3

this interim period.

4 There are two categories of safety 5

questions. The first category we thought was probably 6

taken ca: ' of by the ordinary 50.59-like process.

7 That regulation says that a

licensee, a person 8

licensed to operate a plant, can make changes in'the 9

plant or changes in the procedures for operating the 10 plant as described in the final safety analysis report 11 if it doesn't require an amendment to the license or 12 technical specifications and doesn't present an 13 unreviewed safety question.

We thought that for most 14 safety questions that kind of a regulation would take 15 care of safety problems and that regulation was quite 16 workable in this context.

Although, as I'll get to a 17 little bit later, there's a glitch in the actual 18 wording of the regulation which we can correct rather 19 easily.

20 The second safety issue that occurred to 21 us would be that it's possible that actions prior to 22 de-plan approval might either deplete decommissioning 23 funds so that funding was_ not available and was needed 24 later on to actually complete the decommissioning 25

process, or possibly decommissioning increased NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

.. - - -. = -

37 1

decommissioning costs.

It's the same consequence.

2 So, that was the safety issue we considered that might -

3 be addressed in terms of what actions are approvable, 4

are permissible prior to de-plan approval, those two

)

l 5

safety categories.

6 COMMISSIONER de ' PLANQUE:

Can I ask a i

7 question just on that point?

MR. MALSCH:

Sure.

8 l

9 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Did _you also 10 consider the possibility that spending money -on 11 09 o ining problems now, let's say disposal of a i

12 comr-4

ould actually be significantly cheaper f

t later and have the -reverse effect on the 13 i

i 14 In other-words, it's not going to take 15 away money later on but could, in fact, mean you have 16

.to spend more later on.

17 MR. MALSCH:

In fact we did consider that.

l' 18-

- That's why if we were - to-f ashion thel criteria,- it i

19 would be focusing on not just things that, cost money, a

20

-but things that actually--cause a problem later on in 21 terms of'the availability of; decommissioning funds.

I 22 So, that all comes up again in the context of Lthe NEPA

- 23.-

- foreclosure question and I'11 g' ' ~ to that in a minute.

i j

- 24 In terms of envirow ntal considerations, f

[

T25 the GEIS on.

decommissioning-approves as-the NEAL-R. GROSS

- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433

- WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 -

(202) 234-4433-

.__._--,,,..__._-,_-.,_,_--a,

38 1

decommissioning goal-release of a

site for 2

unrestricted use.

Also, this goal is actually in the 3

regulations defining decommissioning.

So, we thought l

4.

that there were two proper NEPA considerations _for i

i 5

these interim actions.

One is, of course, the usual 6

NEPA consideration and that deals with the actual 7

action at hand not causing a significant environmental 8

impact not previously evaluated, but that's a fairly 4

9 obvious alternative.

10 But in terms of foreclosing options, we 11 thought the focus should not. be on foreclosing 12 decommissioning options since they're all aimed at' the l

L 13 same goal,_ but instead we should look-at the end point j

14 which is release of the site for unrestricted use, 15 That becomes important when you consider, let's say 16 for example, a proposal to remove some piece of 17 equipment from the plant and _ ship it off site - for-18 disposal-in-lieu'of a waste disposal' facility.

That 19 could'actually save money.

On the other hand, _

if 20

_you're focusing on foreclosing decommissioning options 21 --

-and -SAFSTOR' is an option, you end up-at least 4

22 nominally foreclosing the option of. storing that

-23

material on site for an extended period of time.

So, 24

-if that was the NEPA criteria.for interim actions,; you 25 couldn't do it, even though it would save.you money NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i

e y-4

,~,,-....5 rr,

,y

~wm--+--vv

.,,.y e

p-wer ve. -,, -m. m

..wr

..m e

..- - - - ~ - -

3 9..

1 later on and even though taking a

piece of 2

contaminated equipment and shipping it off site for 3-burial in

t would advance the end objective of-4 release of the site for unrestricte'd use.

5 So, for that reason, we think the focus 6

should be on foreclosing or not foreclosing the 7

ultimate aim of decommissioning.

I think the 8

important difference under this criterion is that it 9

would allow under most scenarios a utility to actually 10 do some decontamination disassembly and shipment _off 11 site prior to approval of the decommissioning plan 12 provided there are no safety problems and there are no 13 significant environmental impacts on the actual 14 activity being proposed.

That would be a change.

15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: In your view, we 8 re 16 unable to accommodate-the result that you're proposing 17 or the approach that you're proposing. within' the 18 framework of the-Shoreham standard?

19 MR. MALSCH:

Well, the Shoreham standards 20.

spoke about foreclosing decommissioning options and I 21 think'itLwas understood that those are the options-4

- 22 described.in the GEIS SAFSTOR, entomb, what not.

I

23 know that it's been understood by.the' staff;in.that 24' context, which has caused a great deal of hesitation

- 25 on the-part of the staff in-approving early efforts to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 -

WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005 (202) 2344431

. ~.

40 j

i i

disassemble and ship off site for disposal.

l 2

CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Mr.

Malsch, your 3

discussion is fascinating.

On the other hand, we're 4

56 minutes into the 90 minute session and we're still 5

analyzing the first of seven alternatives.

So, either 6

we need a briefer way of doing this or we need to 7

bring out these points as questions come out.

Can you 8

do this even more briefly or do you want to have 9

questions?

1 10 MR. MALSCH:

Actually, that's the one I s

11 really had to cover in some detail.

The rest of them 12 I think are a little more straightforward.

They are 13 fixing up 50.59, the issuance of confirmatory orders, 14 possession only licenses.

Let me just mention there 15 that there's one very important part of our 16 recommendation and that is to go through all the 17 regulations and prescribe precisely which ones apply 18 to a possession only license.

The effect thereby 19 would be that if such a license is issued, there comes 20 into play an existing defined subset of safety 21 requirements and no need for granting license 22 exemptions as we have in the past.

23 That brings us to the nature of de-plan 24 approval and hearing rights.

Let me go back to Bill 25 on that subject.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

~

41 1

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Are we going to 2

discuss the first point?

3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Let's discuss the first 4

point.

5 MR MALSCH:

Oh, fine.

6 MR.

PARLER:

That's what I

thought..

7 That's why I was silent.

CHAIRMAN SELIN: 'Okay.

I don't know What 8

9 I think until I hear my colleagues' questions.

That 10 will tell me who to disagree with.

11 Do you want to start, Commissioner Remick?

'12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

The first couple 13 questions just for information,-

so I

better 14 understand.

Is a POL considered an amended operating 15 license in this context or is it a new license?

I 16 MR MALSCH:

It is-not a new license.

I i

17 guess you might call it an amended license.

Our 18-proposal would be-to actually -define = it in the I

19 regulations so that it!s defined what it-is and which l

20 regulations apply to issue ~-it and which regulations-21 apply-to-one who holds it.

22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. In your. first i

23 recommendation, if I was the staff, I guess the first i

l_

24 question I'd asked myself in-providing guidance, are l

25 we assuming that the plant has been defueled or not?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.

.(202) 234-4433

4 e

42-it seems to me that 1

If it hasn't. been defueled, 2

there_'s not much guidance.- It's an operating license 3

and your choice is 50.59 or amendment to that license, 4

as I see it.

5 So, first question I would csk providing 6

guidance, are we assuming the plant has been defueled?_

7 Then, the next question I would ask if I was in the-l 8

staf f's position in providing guidance to -- I assume i

i 9

that they've amended their license with something i

10 called a ' possession only license and have they 11 requested things like tech spec changes and so forth?

4 12 It seems to me the staff _ is' in a very position to i

13 provide general _ guidance without making assumptions, 14 I guess, under various options.

15 I don't know, Jim,--if you thought about 2

16 that or not.

17 MR. PARTLOW: - Our assumption is that, yes, l

18 the plant would be defueled before the: POL were ever i

. I think that's one reason why we have placed 19 issued.

[

20 with you for permission for the-SONGS POL early. When l'

l 21 these things ar_e met rather rapidly, then the POL can 22

~be issued as soon as-the.defueling process-is.over 23 with.

I would assume 1191Xtthit would be the starting l

24 point for providing.this guidance on what can be done 25:

and what can't be done.

i.

NEAL R. GROSS j.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W.

-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

I l

I j

4 3 --

i 1

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Okay.

All right.

2 And it seems to me then that the next-thing, you'd 3

have to make some kind of assumption as to has there 4

been some kind.of' amendment to the license called a i

5 POL because that might already -- the POL itself might

)

6 define certain things that have been approved.

So, is l

7 this guidance to lay out the type of things that might 1

4 1

8 be included in a POL?

And once you have the POL,'the l

9 additional things you might do.

I'm a little confused i

10 on the guidance, 11 MR. MALSCH:

I think what we had in mind i

12 is simply defining a possession only license is a 13 license which only authorizes' possession but not-14 operation of the plant.

15 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:

Right.

16 MR.

MALSCH:

Then to go through the l

17 regulations and define

-which regulations and I~

18 requirements do_and do not - apply to;- POL. =

Now, if e

19

'there are requirements in the

license, in-the 20 particular license that apply = to a plant in a~ shutdown 21 mode but which-on reflection are not necessary for a I-22 plant in a shutdown-mode, I-think our proposal would.

r l

23 be to handle-that separately as - a license: amendment __

24 because I didn't think we could speak generically.in

-l I

25 our POL regulations as to which licenses had which.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 4

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433-

-)

i 1

44 1

requirements along those lines because they seem to be 2

so case specific.

9 3

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes.

4 MR. MALSCH:

So, there would still be the 5

need.

Even though a POL were to be issued, there 6

would still be the need on a case by case basis to 7

possibly amend select license in tech specs.

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Well, if the POL is 8

9 amended license, I can ses a broad spectrum of POLS 10 unless-we define it differently.

In other words, 11 somebody might come in and just ask for a possession 12 only license which would be similar to a confirmatory 13 order saying, "We won't operate," but asking for no 14 modification for tech specs or that type of thing, 15 including environmental tech specs.

Somebody else 16 might come in at the time of a POL and indicate 17 they're not going to operate, assuming that they don't 18 already have a confirmetory order to that effect, but 19 also say, "We'd like to change this tech spec, we'd 20 like to change that tech spec," just part of a POL.

21 MR. MALSCH:

That's correct.

22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

And I'm not trying 23 to do the staff's work, but I'm trying to understand 24 what the recommendation is on.what it is that the 25 staff would be working on, what kind of assumptions do j

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

u 45 9

a

-I they make about what is in a POL or -is this more 2

generic and their guidance would be the type of things-3 that might be considered either in a POL or -- I'm at 4

a loss to understand.

5 MR. PARLER:

It's more generic'as to the 6

things that could be done say under the operating 7

license.

There is some flexibility there under 50.59 8

of the operating license once the decision is made to i

l 9

cease operation and a confirmatory order is issued.

10 I understand that under some of these operating f-11 licenses there are tech specs which automatically 1

12 become inoperative or of no further meaning because a 13 particular mode of operation has been changed.

Then, i'

14 how we react to the amendment by amendment approach, 15 to the POL approach, to -- in other words, what we r

16 foresee would be the sort of things that can't be-done 17 prior to the approval of the decommissioning plan.

i-18 If, as I am informed, not being a technical-expert, i

l 19 under 50.59 when you have an operatingJlicense that's 20 still in the operating mode,.one can remove-the steam-21 generators under 50.59 without too much adieu,. it 22 would seem to me that until the-decommissioning plan =

'23 is submitted and-approved there's quite-a bit = that can l

24-be-done.

25-As I understood this recommendation and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

4 (202) 2344433

. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 t

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

46 1

certainly from rather intensive discussions, the 2

objective is to update and expand the regulatory guide 3

as necessary to indicate how the staff views some of 4

these various things, what could be done at various 5

steps.

In that respect, it is perhaps a more 6

comprehensive approach and more generic guidance to 7

the approach which the staff asks the Commission for 8

guidance on and I believe the paper was90-194 in 9

Shoreham that I alluded to earlier, specific things 10 that could be done at specific steps.

The Commission 11 did not give any guidance on that and said that they 12 would continue to answer the questions on a case by 13 case basis.

14 This recommendation number 1 asks the who knew how to write this staff paper 15 staff 16 telling the Commission what they plan to do.at various 17 steps to flesh that out and perhaps give everybody 18

guidance, at least generic guidance.

That's my 19 understanding of what the recommendation is talking 20 about.

4 21 MR. PARTLOW: I think this recommendations 22 1 and 4 somewhat go as a set.

Recommendation number 23 1 is really about how much dismantling can take place.

24 Recommendation number 4 will help to clarify what's 25 the timing of reduction in regulatory requirements, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 294 4433 WASHINGTCN. O C. 20005 (202) 2344 433

47 1

tech specs or not.

2 MR. PARLER:

There's another difference 3

too.

Recommendation number 1

is

generic, 4

recommendation number 4 would be a plant-specific 5

action.

6 MS. YOUNG:

If I could also add, I don't 7

think it really matters whether you have a POL that 8

just prohibits you from operating or a POL that'has 9

attendant with it those tech spec changes that remove 10 all sorts of related requirements.

The issue that we 11 were concerned about was what regulations really apply 12 to a plant that's no longer going to operate, what are 13 the hazards imposed by that plant, what emergency 14 planning requirements are necessary, what leak rate 15 testing requirements might apply, those things of 16 concern.

But in addition to the decommissioning 17 context, a licensee and the staff who is going to be 18 overseeing these activities needs to know what-types 19 of things can proceed without approval of the plan if 20 you are a facility that is no longer going to operate.

21' COMMISSIONER REMICK:

That I understand, 22 but in my simplistic view they have an operating 23 license which defines which regulations apply.

Until 24 that is amended, that's it.

I don't know how else and 25 I don't think by guidance we can change an operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433

.~

~ -. ~. -

_48 1

license.

They-have to somehow-amend the license.

2 MR. PARLER: What you are-talking about is 4

j 3

really the point that we had more internal debate 4

about than I -- amongst us lawyers than 'I care to have l

5 had.

My answer to that was that what we are talking 6

about here assumes that there is no uncertainty about 4

7-what the licensee wants to do and what its plans are, 8

that a. decision has been made that the licensee is e

-9 going to decommission this plant and it is prepared to 10 go into a mode of. operation'where the operation would 1

11 cease and~they would embark on the course toward the 12 approval of the decommissioning plan and ultimately 5

13 the termination of the license.

Early on.when the:

l l

14 decision is made, you still have a Part 50 license, 15 but a Part 50 license has been amended so that the i

16-facility could no longer-be operated.

i 17 MS. YOUNG:

And there are regulations now 18 that are phrased in. terms ofTeach licensee authorized 19 to operate.

They're the regulations that are phrased 20 in terms of each operating license shall..

S o,- i t s J

21 very difficult once you remove that authorityt to i

22 operate to tell in every instance with certainty I

23 whether certain-requirements in Part.50 apply to you 24 or they don't._

The_ staff has kind of had to do those-25 en an ad-hoc basis, often taking the conservative-t j

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, 0,C. 20005.

(202) 234-4433

- -...... ~

49 1

approach that if there's any room for doubt, maybe 2

they should be an amendment or exemption.

3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

So, I take that 4

you're assuming that there has been an amendment to 5

modify the operating license then.

POL issued.

6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Or confirmatory 7

order.

MS. YOUNG:

Confirmatory order.

8 9

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

But a confirmatory 10 order, I think, just says that they will not operate, 11 right?

It doesn't get into relief on tech specs and 12 things like that.

13 MR. PARLER:

There's a variety of things 14 that might happen, I've been told, but the crucial 15 thing that has to be decided is that the decision has 16 been made that the plant will not be operated and 17 they're going to decommission the plant and an i

18 appropriate regulatory action should be taken early on 19 to reflect that.

One of the quickest ways to do that 20 is through the confirmatory order, which is kind of 21 like, at least in these circumstances, the equivalent 22 to a temporary restraining order or some prompt 23 understanding as to what the situation will be.

Then, 24 when the licensee wants to proceed further to get 25 further relief, the licensee has the flexibility to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTiRS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

50 1

it either by amendment or to come in with a possession 2

only license.

3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Okay.

I think that 4

answered it because I thought perhaps what was being 5

said is they have a license and they're committed to 6

that license.

I thought perhaps you were saying that 7

by some type or generic guidance they were going to be 8

relieved from the commitments of that license.

In my 9

simplistic view, the only way they can be relieved 10 from the commitment of that license is amendment to 11 that license, which we might call POL.

12 MR.

PARLER:

Excuse me.

The 13 recommendation --

I can help on this one.

The 4

recommendation number 1 has nothing to do with giving 15 any plant-specific relief.

The recommendation number 16 1,

the objective would be to remove some of the 1*/

ambiguity that I spent quite a bit of the 60 minutes 18 of time that has already elapsed explaining that 19 exists because of the fact that the rules do not cover 20 premate ly shut down plants.

The statement ~ of 21 considerations give the guidance that I tried to give 22 and the Commission has given certain guidance but 23 largely it is that the cases will be decided on a case l

24 by case basis.

It's that generic guidance that the l

l 25 recommendation 1 talks about.

Recommendation 1 with

(

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

l (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

51 --

1-all the generic guidance-in the world would give~no 2

relief to any specific licensee.

3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Let me follow up on 4

Commissioner Remick's question because I think he's 5

focusing on -- or at least I think it's important to 6

focus on your recommendation insofar as what happens 7

when a confirmatory order or a POL.is issued because 8

by. operation of either of those two actions -- I Want 9

to ask in a minute whether--there are other similar 10 legal vehicles that would permit a licensee to take 11 such a step.

But by-operation of the issuance of a 12 POL or a confirmatory order, we~are indeed granting a 13 licensee relief in the sense that you are proposing to 14 use that new -- called a legal benchmark, if you will, 15 as the basis for 50.59 modifications.

So, unlike a 16 situation that would exist for an operating _ reactor 17 licensee only authorized to operate at full p_ower 18 where their-benchmark for 50.59 is keeping the plant 19 operational, one of the significant steps that _you?re 20

. proposing here, in fact-it sounds very familiar-to me-21 because I.believe this is a step we ought to take, is 22 to provide by issuance of a confirmatory. order or a 23 POL for the conversion of,what you have called the.

,24 50.59 benchmark to permit the licensee to do some 25.

things under 50.59 that they could not previously_do

- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

. (202) 234-4433 l

52 1

absent either of those two legal steps.

Is that a 2

correct summary?

4 3

MR. PARLER:

That is correct, but it's 4

just not focusing on the 50.59.

The 50.59 is just one 5

aspect of the problem --

6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: But there are other 7

things as well.

That's right.

MR. PARLER:

-- as to make it quite clear 8

9 that in the situation that we're talking about one 10 does not have to worry about answering the question 11 when does decommissioning begin, et cetera, et cetera, 12 that have it nailed down by a regulatory action that 13 presumably the licensee wants.

The licensing having 14 made the decision is not going to operate the plant 15 any longer and it wants to proceed on the route of I

16 decommissioning.

17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Do you have --

18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Not on the first 19 question.

20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I have questions on 21 all but one of your recommendations.

We'll come back 22 to the hearing issues.

23 Let me say I think the recommendations 24 that you've laid out here in most of the significant i

25 respects are right on the mark.

I think you've now k

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C, 20005 (202;.N

53 1

come to grips with some of the key questions that have 2

arisen in the contexts of specific cases, that as you g

3 pointed out have been the focus of a lot of painful 4

debate and discussion.

I think the approach that 5

you've laid out here on all of the major issues save 6

one that I have a question about is a sound way to 7

proceed.

The questions that I have are really only 8

limited to clarifying in areas where I don't fully 9

understand what you're recommending or suggesting ways J

10 in which we might even make the process more efficient 11 and more effective.

12 Let me begin with the first 13 recommendation.

The only observation I guess I would 14 make there, and I'll direct this to both the technical 15 staff first and then the legal staff, is that I am 16 concerned that if we are to await further development 17 of guidance to define what can be done by a licensee 18 in this context, that is to say after the issuance of 19 a POL or a confirmatory order,-that the 1974 guidance 20 that's on the books now that in 1988 we committed in 21 the statement of considerations to update might, in 22 fact I think will become the critical path to allowing 23 some of these things to'be done, some of these things 24 that you've alluded to, steam generator being taken l

75 out, pressurizers and so forth.

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

l

54 1

If we're not in a position either.to allow 2

those to go on independent of the development of the 3

guidance, or alternatively the guidance itself is 4

forthcoming quickly -- let me ask a question about the 5

former option -- could we under this approach, and 6

absent the guidance being final at this point, could 7

a licensee that has either a confirmatory order or a 8

POL go in today and under the approach that you've 9

recommended under 50.59 take out its steam generators, 10 take out its pressurizer, take out other radioactive 11 components that in the Soc might have been defined as 12 decommissioning, do so under 50.59 without the need to 13 have that guidance in place first, would the staff be 14 comfortable permitting those actions to be taken 15 today.

16 MR. PARTLOW:

On a safety basis the staff 17 would be comfortable.

The staff would want to make 18 sure that it is comfortable carrying out Commission 19 policy on decommissioning.

As the General Counsel 20 said to open, life is going on and we do have a plant, 21 Yankee Rowe, that is ready to proceed with these kinds 22 of activities.

They're not ready today.

They are 23 going to be ready shortly, perhaps before we can have 24 all this guidance in place.

But as the Commission 25 said in the Fort St. Vrain decommissioning order, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344433-

55 1

these things need to proceed on a case by case basis 2

and I

would say that that is our plan

now,

's to try to work to start on this-3 Commissioner, i

4 guidance using the real case of Yankee Rowe.

5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Yes. Obviously the 6

outcome --

7 MR. PARTLOW:

But the answer is yes, on a 8

safety basis ' we are comfortable with a competent

.\\

9 utility carrying out those actions under 50.59.

10 MR. PARLER:

In addition to what Jim has 11 said, let me assure the Commission that-this paper and I

12 this recommendation did not mean to even. remotely 13 suggest until the guidance was out activities should 14 cease.

That's why I tried to emphasize at the outset 15 the-case by case approach, but it's still underway.

16 The guidance-here is generic guidance, so that two 17 decades from now when _ people. are - talking about a 18-prematurely decommissioned plant, they will not-have-19 to go through the Commission's decision history ' in 20 Shoreham and ; tho statement ' of - considerations,.et -

21 cetera, et cetera, to find out if a question is raised 22

- what could or couldJnot be'done.

23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Let me make.three 24-suggestions here for you to think about.

One, I think 25 it's important to-get the guidance developed and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS d23 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) *W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

56 1

hope we can proceed even perhaps if it's in some form 2

that can be moved forward on quickly, it's valuable to 3

have licensees have that guidance available.

It's 4

overdue.

5 Second, having caid that, I think it does 6

make -- this is my own personal ti.w.

It does make 7

sense to permit -- once a confirmatory order or a POL 8

is issued, maybe some other legal mechanism as well, 9

it does make sense to permit a licensee pursuant to 10 50.59 to undertnke steps like the ones that we've 11 talked about here..Now, the question then that arises 12 is do you allow the things that have just been done to 13

date, like steam generator change-outs, or do you 14 permit other things?

I guess those are my two 15 suggestions.

One, get the guidance out.

Number two, 16 50.59 can be used, I think, to permit many of these 17 things to be undertaken.

18 Technical question.

Would you -- under 19 the approach that you have suggested, that you woulu-20 not foreclose unrestricted release of the site'in the 21 actions that you take, is it conceivable that a 22 licensee pursuant to 50.59 can do not just those 23 things that we've seen normal licensees do today, like 24 steam generator change-outs, but could take 50.59 all 25 the way to the point of, let's say, cutting up the s

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

57-1 vessel and essentially what we've called 2

decommissioning the facility?

i 3

MR.

PARTLOW:

It's conceivable-by 'a 4

licensee that -- given they're going out of business.

5 That means people leave, programs may not be as -- so, 6

as long.as we found that utility to continue to be 7

competent to carry out those kinds of. activities, I 8

would say yes.

9 MR. PARLER:

I would think that at what 10 point along the various steps if you can go to a-11-certain extreme such as taking the pressure-vessel 12 apart, et cetera, one needs to examine carefully in 13 the guidance what the role of the decommissioning plan 14 is.

Does it have any substance left to it or is it a i-15 shell?

Is it something that simply looks down beyond 16 after everything has been dismantled and 17 decontaminated to the-steps that ultimately are 18 contemplated: prior to the eventual termination of.the-19 license and the release of.the site for unrestricted-20 use X decades-in the future.

21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

I have a direct 22 follow-up to that question.

.Is it clear whether or 23 not decommissioning-funds can:be'used in the example

~24 given,= removal of a steam generator?

25 MR.

PARTLOW:

I may have to. defer to-NEAL R. GROSS' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

..,. ~ _.. _,,

58 1

someone, but I

believe the intent is that 2

decommissioning funds be spent only after the 3

decommissioning plan has been approved and ordered.

4 MR. MALSCH:

I think that that's been the 5

practice.

There would be a concern, let's say 6

hypothetically, in taking out let's say the pressure 7

vessel.

If you spent decommissioning funds, let's say 8

a substantial part of decommissioning funds, and were 9

depleting the fund prior to approval of the de-plan, i

10 begin to get concerned about whether if you later were 11 to approve a different method of decommissioning 12 there'd be enough money left to carry it out.

13 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Yes, but this is 14 where you get into my earlier point that it may be 15 cheaper to do it now.

16 MR. MALSCH:

Yes.

17 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Thus you have i

18 more money later.

19 MR. MALSCH:

Yes.

20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

So, it's not a 21 simple issue.

22 MR. MALSCH:

That's right, it's not as 23 simple as it might seem.

24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

They have to get a plan 25 in.

By the way, I just want to make it absolutely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

I 59 1

clear.

No one has ever said that once the licensee 2

has expended the decommissioning funds he's off the 3

hook.

4 MR. MALSCH:

No.

5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: That is an escrow account 6

towards decommissioning, but not a limitation on 7

balance.

MR. MALSCH:

Right.

8 9

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

On the financing 10 question, and it is a central one, I think it's worth 11 reexamining that question and doing it obviously given 12 the pending case in an expeditious way.

What you are 13 proposing here is to allow activities you are 14 proposing a standard for defining what can be done and 15 can't be done prior to approval of a decommissioning 16 plan frankly is different from what we've had to date, 17 or at least what the statement of consideration says 18 in the rule itself.

It's also different from what, as 19 you've pointed

out, footnote 3

in the Shoreham 20 decision says.

21 MR. PARLER: Yes. However, the commission 22 did decide in Shoreham that the approval of a

23 decommissioning plan is not the necessary prerequisite 24 to the approval of the-possession only license.

What 25 wa unclear from the discussion here is what in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 1

60 1

direction - of decommissioning could be done under~a 2

possession only license.

3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I agree. The point 4

that I'm trying to make here is that what you're 5

proposing is to permit a lot of activities to be 6

undertaken and I think it's proper to do that given 7

what you've suggested on the standard, that the 8

undertaking of which was included in the estimates 9

that the licensees produced and the funds that they 10

-have been accumulating in their decommissioning trust

-11 funds to date.

If we're going to permit these-12

-activities to be undertaken, it-does seem to me that 13 a parallel thought that we ought-to= focus on, the one 14 that Commissioner de Planque raised, is if we're going 15 to permit these to be undertaken prior to approval of 16 the decommissioning plan, it would make sense from a 17 practical standpoint to say-that those funds that have 18 accumulated and been estimated to carry out these-kind -

19 of activities--to date somehow ought to be available to 20 be expended from the decommissioning trust fund.

21 MS.

YOUNG:

Commissioner

Curtiss, 22 something you said troubled me. -

You. talk about-23 whether-.we could proceed. according to these 24 recommendations today.

I guess the staff, from my-25 experience,- has been operating under the rubric of NEAL R. GROSS -

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

_ (202) 234-4433

61 1

CLI-90-08 that they have to preserve alternatives, so 2

I think it would really take a specific statement from 3

the Commission to deviate or at least further explain 4

what that standard meant to really be able-to allow 5

plants to do everything under 50.59, not to mention 6

changing 59 to apply to plants that have licenses that 7

don't authorize operation.

MR.

PARLER:

Right, and what we have 8

9 suggested, these recommendations are really a kind of 10 boundary or framework in which, if the Commission 11 chooses to provide this sort of flexibility, they can 12 do it from a legal standpoint. And I also understand, 13 at least very generally, that the staff does not 14 disagree with the recommendations.

I understand that 15 they support them.

16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Let me be clear l

17 here.

I think it's tough to square the approach that 18 you've recommended, which I happen to agree with, with 19 the standards set forth in CLI-90-08.

And I do think 20 we need, either through a change to the regulations or I actually don't think it requires that 21 a

22 Commission approval of this SECY paper, I think, would 23 accomplish that in an SRM.

24 MR. PARLER:

Well, the staff requirements 25 memorandum with clearer guidance on how to proceed l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-(202) 2M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2M I

62 1

1 under these recommendations would be an important 2

first step.

3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

My point was that 4

you ought to be able to proceed in this regard without 5

having the long-awaited guidance developed in final 6

form, because we may be waiting a long time for that 7

to happen.

8 MS. YOUNG:

We'll take guidance in'any 9

form.

10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Before you go on past 11 that, commissioner Curtiss, I'd like --

12 COMMISSIONER CURLSS:

Go ahead.

13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I read this paper as 14 having three parts to it.

15 Number one, it says let's define what we 16 mean by the options that we wish to keep open.

Are 17 they different options in a sense of keeping open 1

i 18 different decommissioning options or are they 19 different options in a sense of not precluding ways of i

20 getting unrestricted use?

l 21 Second, there's a bunch of very specific, 22 a':1 I agree with Commissioner Curtiss and I think the 23 rest of my colleagues, very specific sensible things i

24 about bringing things up to date and tying them l

25 together.

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 -

(202) 2344433 l

63 1

And then third, which we haven't gotten 3

into, are the hesring procedures.

3 I see no reason that, after suitable 4

discussion and framing, we couldn't in an SRM address 5

the first question s..ich is the critical question 6

that's been brought up.

What options must be 7

maintained in order for people to go ahead short.of 8

regulatory guidance and all these other things?

It's 9

a reasonable objective to see if we can't do that in 10 an SRM.

I wouldn't expect in the short run an SRM 11 addressing the 20 or 30 very specific questions that 12 are in here, but perhaps we could split up the 13 response on that broad basis that commission curtiss 14 has brought up from exactly how we feel about --

15 MR. PARLERt Most of the 20 or 30 or how 16 many specifically there are flow from the fundamental 17 question as to how much flexibility the commission f

18 wants -to give a

Part 30 licensee to commence 19 decommissioning once the accision is made to shut-down 20 the facility and to decommission it, how much could be 21 done prior to the submissior snd-the approval of the 22 decommissioning plan. That's what the policy issue is 23 that has to be addressed and guidance.on.

The other 24 things kind of like follow from.that.

25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I wonder if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REf ORTERS AND Ndt(#1LERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENp

,V.

(202) 2344433 V

'ON. D.C. 20J05 '

. (202) F34 4433

64 3

could just say a few words about the issue of illegal 2

segmentation of decommissioning. It's not quito clear 3

to me how all this fits into that prohibition.

4 MR.

MALScil I think that there are 5

several ways to look at this and there are several 6

kinds of criteria in the case law.

The concern is 7

that on the assumption, which may not be correct, but 8

on the assumption that approval of the decommissioning 9

plan requires a full environmental impact statement 30 and the question in whether Agency actions beforehand 11 ought to be done only with the full EIS or whether you 12 can take them in advance and do the full EIS later on.

13 There's several considerations that apply here.

14 one would be, are you by approving things 15 piecemeal before full preparation of the EIS 16 overlooking some environmental impact that you would 17 pick up if you did the full EIS now?

I think our 18 analysis suggested that would not be the caso so long 4

19 as the actual actions you're taking are examined and 20 there's assurance that they themselves don't cause any 21 significant environmental impact.

22 The other concern is prejudicing the 23 results of the ultimate NEPA review.

And since we 24 thought that the ultimate NEPA review, if there was to 25 be a full impact statement, would be examining the i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

65 1

goal of releasing tne site for unrestricted use as 2

long as our recommendation sets forth, that goal is 3

not prejudiced.

You haven't prejudiced the ultimate 4

llEpA question.

5 llow there's one other consideration 6

sometimes applied, and that is whether the individual 7

actions before preparation of the full EIS are a

dependent in the sense that they cannot be justified 9

unless you assumed the end result of the final 10 environmental impact statement.

This criteria is 11 derived from all these interesting early llEpA cases 12 involving interstate highways where you had like a 13 proposal to have an interstate connecting two cities 14 and an environmental controversy about some path in 15 between as to which it was conceded -;he need for a 16 full environmental impact statement and the Agency was 17 proposing to build both segments up to the middle 18 without doing the EIS. The question was, well, unless 19 you presumed the results of the EIS, there's no 20 justification for building in two segments.

21 liere,

though, if you talk about 22 justification, the kinds of actions we're talking 23 about arc independently justified, for example just 24 saving money or reducing unnecessary safety 25 requirements which would have viability and meaning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

66 1

regardless of how the decommissioning plan was 2

actually approved, so we didn't think in the final 3

analysis that that was a relevant consideration.

So 4

it boiled down to the two criteria we have, impact 5

from the actual actions at hand

and, two, not 6

foreclosing ultimate release for unrestricted use, and 7

we think that takes care of any segmentation problem.

CHAIRMAll SELIN:

Commission

Curtiss, 8

9 although it may be hard to remember, still has the 10 floor.

11 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS:

I just have two 12 specific questions and then I'm done save for the 13 hearing questioris.

14 Your comment that we need to amend 50.59 15 to make it clearly applicable to POL holders, is there 16 any uncertainty that arises from that recommendation 17 insofar as our ability to permit the now current POL 18 holders to proceed with 50.59 actions?

19 MR. PARLER:

I don't think there's any 20 great uncertainty that would cause General Counsel to 21 lose sleep because of litigative risk, but it is a 22 fact that the rule talks about changes for licenses 23 that are authorized to operate and I would think that 24 we are talking more about just a cleaning up thing at l

25 some appropriate time rather than some major obstacle, l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i

67 1

That's the way that I would view the issue.

2 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Okay.

3 Second question.

You've identified two 4

specific legal vehicles that in your view provide a 5

basis for permitting a licensee to go ahead and make 6

50.59 changes with the new legal benchmarx, the 7

possession only license and the confirmatory order.

8 Are there other possible options which you have'not 9

discussed here which would have the same legal effect 10 either in the form of actions that we take or in the 11 case of, for example, a contractual commitment not to 12 operate the plant that would be sufficient to convert 13 the license to that new basis?

14 MR. PARLER:

As a regulatory agency, I 15 would be kind of latcy or not have a complete good 16 feeling about contractual commitments because that 17 would get me into an entire other area, validity of 18 the contact and other "what ifs."

I am sure that 19 there must be other regulatory ways short of 20 contractual commitments.

These are the traditional 21 ways and-these are the only ones that occur to us, 22 but--

23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Would a

24 confirmatory action letter serve that purpose?

25 MR. PARLER: Well, you get into a question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 2344433 i.

1 68

)

j 1

as to what's the difference between a confirmatory a

2 action letter and a confirmatory order and whether one 3

amends the license or not and what sort of hearing 4

opportunities that provides.

I suppose that perhaps 5

it might, but I prefer to stick with those things that 6

I'm more comfortable with and have control over and 7

that's why we mentioned these two.

Dut if there are others that would at 8

9 least remove any uncertainty from a

regulatory 10 standpoint that the plant is no longer licensed to 11 operate and that the licensee is embarhed on_a course 12 of decommisr 4 aning, whatever you call them and if they 13 do the job from the regulatory standpoint, they would 14 be okay.

15 MR.

MALSCH:

one consideration.

We S

l 16 thought that it was important in doing this evaluation 17 that the rebaseline would be rebaselining for 1

18 purposes of 50.59, evaluations would be occasioned by 19

-some.NRC initiative.

Otherwise, you_end-up with a l

20 situation in which,- let's say hypothetically, a

4 21 licensee with-a plant shut-down for -refueling 22 unilaterally elects-to rebaseline all the 50.59 23

. evaluations and different-things, assuming the plant 24 will not operate without informing the NRC and you e'nd '

-25 up 'down this slippery-slope as to what these

--NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCalBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234-4433

. ASHINGTON, O C. 20005 -

(202) 234-4433 -

W

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

69 1

evaluations actually are.

2 MR. PARTLOW: Commissioner, I would think, 3

if we're going to go through the regulations and 7

4 clarify which ones apply and which ones don't to a-5 plant, it's not going to operate, that probably a bit 6

of a higher regulatory footprint than a confirmatory 7

action letter would probably be appropriate.

MR. PARLER:

I have one other comment.

8 9

That is that my response to your question was a 10 generic one looking to the future.. If other devices 11 have been used in current cases, I did not mean by my 12 remark to have any legal uncertainty about those other 13 approaches.

I was speaking about what I would feel 14 more comfortable with generically for the future.

15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Commissioner de Planque?

16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:- No questions.

17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Commissioner Rogers?

18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I don't have any.

19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I have one more-20 item.

I'm sorry.

21 If a

licensee were to choose-the 22

-alternative of entombment --- which-is one of our 23

options, right,- in decommissioning?

does that 24 foreclose that site use for-unrestricted use?

j 25 MR. MALSCH:

Well, first of all, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON DE 20005 --

(202) #34 4433 m

.,w_-.,.,_,..

,-y.m'

_,.,r

,,_.,my,,,..-.____,%,.,.,,,__.,..,_..,m._,.

w,.,_.-.,w.e

..y..

70 1

Commission's regulations when they were drafted were 2

focusing on release for unrestricted use from a 3

radiological safety standpoint only.

The regulations 4

were never structured so that you would return this to 5

its pristine environmental condition.

It was only 6

focusing on radiological concerns.

7 I think that entombment, if you're talking 8

about entombmont of structures which are radioactively 9

contaminated and, for example, would not satisfy 10 releana for unrestricted use for ecological criteria, 11 then that is in fact inconsistent with the goal of 12 decommissioning.

13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Okay.

Then, if we

'14 change the criteria as you've suggested here, we would I

i 15 be precluding entombment as one of the alternatives?

16 MR. MALSCH:

No.

I mean, it's there as an 17 alternative.

My assumption has been that somehow the 18 drafters assumed that the structures ultimately 19 entombed would meet the criteria for release for 20 unrestricted use.

21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Oh, I see.

So you 22 could presumably have structures there maise earth-23 mounded, not be a radiological hazard, and that would 24 meet the goal?

25 MR. MALSCH:

Right.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

=_.

71 1

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I see.

Okay.

l 2

MR.

MALSCH:

I think that's what the 3

drafters assumed.

i 4

CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Sounds to me like a 4

5 regulation that says pi shall be equal to 3 because e

6 it's too hard to remember all those decimals.

7 MR. PARLER:

Then they try to explain in 8

the statement of considerations why pi should be equal 9

.to 3 because it's too hard.

10 "It - is the Commission's belief that an-11 entombment alternative for decommissioning should not 12 be specifically precluded in the rule, because there 13 may be instances in which it would be an allowable 14 alternative in protecting the public health and 15 safety." obviously, the draf tsman had difficulty with 16 the concept of providing an entombment alternative 17 with the definition of releasing something for 18 unrestricted use.

19 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Right.

20.

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

But:the point I'm.

21 trying to get'at, this_ changing criteria:would not 22 preclude that as a possibility?

23

' MR. MALSCH: - No.

I think it's still there 24 as-a possibility,.

25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I just want to make a NEAL R. GROSS -

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,

^ (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 in,..,6..,..._........,__

73 1

couple of comments and then ask a question about the 2

hearing stuff, because we really need to break in j

l 3

about 15 minutes absolutely.

4 First of all, I'd like to identify myself 5

with commissioner curtiss' general positive statement.

6 In fact, I'd like to go even a step further.

Not only 7

is it a first-rate piece of work, but, given where we i

8 stand and the need:to really focus on decommissioning, 9

I would like to make sure that the staff gets the 10 appropriate guidances.

Most licensees I think are 11 going to be reticent to come forward rather than 12 trying to sneak some complete decommissioning plan 13 over on the staff and we really do have to make sure l

14 that common sense and the ultimate objective, which is 15 return to unrestricted radiological use, governs the l

16 steps and your approach seems-to me to: hit all these 17 points on a common sense basis.

I think that's very 18 good.

19 I would like to look ahead to the hearing 20 and ask you a general question about.it.. If in fact 21 it's feasible to carry out your first recommendation, 22 in other words have fairly _ clear guidance as to what 23

' it means to foreclose options that i we don't want 24 foreclosed, to increase decommissioning cause, and to 25 avoid environmental impact,_is it your. opinion that-NEAL Rc GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 -

(202) 234-443J -

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

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

73

+

1 the public can reasonably be expected to be served if L

2 no-hearings are held until the decommissioning plan 3

comes in?

i i

l-4 In other words, thinking logically about j

5 what we mean by an open process and making sure the

~

6 public's interests are

served, that those three i

7 conditions are met, are there other strong reasons

]

8 that there would be a basis for trying to push up'the 9

decommissioning plan or hold the hearing-early?

Are 10 there reasonable options for the public other than 11 these options, I guess, is the way_ to put the 12 question.

i 13 MR. MALSCH: The concern would be -- well, i

14 if we are faithful in a hearing to our recommendttions 15 about. what-can and cannot be

done, then,. by 16 definition, things which will be occurring prior to 17 the hearing on the de-plan approval will involve no

'18 significant environmental impact, no safety hazards, 19 no foreclosure of release-for unrestricted use.

But 20 things will be going on which will'cause questions as-

- 21

.to the public ---in the'public's mind as-to perhaps-22 what is going on here.

23-The option that we just sort of mentioned-24 briefly was _ you could move the process up further 25 earlier so.that-there was-a public process before any-j NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

.._..-._.,,_,,_.r,_.__.._,.,,,-,,,,_,_

_.. _ _ = - _ -.

74 1

significant actions began to take place.

But that 2

runs into two difficulties.

You then, first of all, 3

end up having to define commencement of 4

decommissioning or some other phase and prohibit i

5 things until the de-plan is approved.

And it clso 6

forces you to move up submission of the 7

decommissioning plan so you can have a meaningful a

8

hearing, 9

So in terms of a

hearing on the 10 decommissioning plan itself, we weren't sure that was 11 such a feasible concept.

There could be less formal 1

12 mechanisms that could easily be adopted, for example, 13 public meetings, workshops, open public meetings near 14 the site that could be done that would inform the 15 public what is going on but would stop short of an 16 adjudication on the de-plan.

17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

How about something like 18 your step 3 where when licensees have to inform the i

19 NRC that we consider that should be done at a public 20 meeting and that people would have a chance to hear 21 what they're -- so at least they have a general idea 22 of what's being done to them.

I 23 MR. MALSCH:

That's correct.

24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Because, I feel very, t

25 very strongly -- this came up in Shoreham -- that the

(

NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPCNTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINMON, AC. 70005 (202) 2344433

75 o

1 idea to make a decision and then have a hearing 2

afterwards, which can only in extremis affect that 3

decision, is cynicism and we must avoid that.

If this 4

approach would avoid that, it sounds attractive.

5 MR.

MALSCH:

You could, for example, 6

require shortly after issuance of the confirmatory 7

order that a licensee at that point inform the Agency 8

of its plans and at that point the NRC could schedule 9

a public meeting on the plans.

10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Okay.

The second 11 question goes back to the thing that Mr. Parler said, 12 which is central to all this is a better definition of 13 what a decommissioning plan is, what it's supposed to 14 carry out.

In my mind, it makes ultimate objectives 15 and basically says, "Once wo get this junk out of 16 here, here's how we're going to decontaminate what's 17 left and open the space to public use and here's what 18 it's going to cost and here's how it's going to be 19 funded."

But, that concept really has to be carried 20 out.

21 I haven't seen and, even if we just said 22 your paper is approved, I still don't see that we have 23 clarified the concept of what a decommissioning plan 24 is.

Do you think that's essential?

And if so, what 25 vehicle would you see our following in order to do NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMNO AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

~... - -. -

76 E

1 this?

i j

2 MR. PARLER:

Some of the elements of what i

3 a decommissioning plan should contain are in the i

i 4

decommissioning rule, the decommissioning plan as well i

5 as the preliminary decommissioning plan.

I think the 6

elements that are

there, if my recollection is 7

correct, are adequate to at least indicate to an i.

8 interested member of the public that the objective of 9

the plan is as you have described and it would be i

10 something-that an interested member of the public 4

11 would be interestet. in, I would think, because here is j

12 a plan that would say how this thing that has been i

13 used for some other purpose eventually at some time i

14 after certain courses of action will be released for i

15 unrestricted use.

That's the kind of thing, unlike l

16 highly technical questions, that interested citizens l

17 might have a particular interest -in and - they might 1

18 have a partic'ular jnterest in it before'the plan is l

19 approved.

i 20 Therefore, the suggestion in the-t 21 recommendation number 5 that the -- maybe. offering a i

l 22 post-effectiveness hearing,.-that the policies-there, i

23

.the. policy-considerations there-might suggest-l.-

24 otherwise, that if, in view of the-- potential 25

-importance, no matter what has been done before to get NEAL R. GROSS

. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l-1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

[-

(202) 234 4433

. ASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 '.

(202) 234 4433 W

_ _ -. = - _ -,, _,.. - _. _ _.. _, _. _.,, _

s.....

77 1

the materials or the structures off of the site, there 2

are still important considerations that remain that i

3 the public should have an opportunity and perhaps a 4

prior opportunity to be heard on.

5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS As a practical 6

matter, I read your recommendation as saying that a 7

definition of a decommissioning plan is going to 8

emerge as a result of your case by case consideration 9

of what you're prepared to permit a licensee to do 10 under 50.59.

And the-upshot of that is that the 11 definition of a decommissioning plan is kind of going 12 to be a revealed -standard.

We're going to ' define 13 things that they can do in this case by case review 14 that the technical staff will undertake, presumably 15 carving away things for which a

pre-approved 16 decommissioning. plan is not required, leaving some 17 residual yet to be determined to be addressed in a 18 decommissioning plan.

19 I think it's dif ficult,. because - of - the 20

_need to. approach these issues in'that case by case 21 way, to say in a prospective way, "Here are things you 22 can or ' can't do."

You either have to decide we're

~23 going to do that on a_ case by case basis or you have

-24 to - say we're not going to do that, we're going to 25 define the dividing line between what can and can't be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W..

(202) 234 4 433.---

' WASHINGTON. D.C. P0005 (202) 234-4433

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

_,.m

_-_,.._,.,.--,,_..,_me._a.m--,.,-

,.m,m--.

i 78 i

4 1

done in a generic-fashion.

I'm comfortable with that 2

approach.

j 3

MR. PARLER:

I would think that, as a 4

general proposition, trying to decide in advance for 5

all cases the timing of the hearing and the kind of

}

U 6

hearing would probably not be too wise, because in i

7 some_ instances there may well be the particular case 8

where you would decide otherwise. If generic guidance J

9 is given, it would have to be ' qualified for the-l 10 special~ case in any event.

i j

11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I was raising the i

12 technical question. On the hearing question, frankly, 4

13 the-only recommendation in here that I disagree with I

i l

14 is your recommendation number 5.

It does seem to me i

15 that, in view of the fact that you're permitting a lot

- 16 of these things to be undertaken without the need for-L 17 a pre-approved decommissioning plan that is in turn k

18 the subject of a public hearing, together with the j.

19 Chairman's-comment or' recommendation that you do j

- 20 recommendation number '3 in a public f ashion, that you.

l 21_

do that in a public forum in some way, it seems to me 22 that you've eliminated all.of the disincentive to hold b

23

_a hearing'in. advance of approval of whatever is left l

24 in the decommissioning plan.

)

25-I frankly am comfortable saying, as I was l

NEAL R. GROSS

- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 134-4433

. _..n.,__.

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

79 1

in Shoreham, that we ought to say as a matter of 2

policy that we will conduct a hearing prior to 3

approval of the decommissioning plan, whatever that 4

night be in a particular case.

5 MR. PARLER:

I would agree with that for 6

different reasons, which I tried to state.

7 CHAIRMAN SELINt Let me just summarize 8

three quick points and then turn to my colleagues.

9 Number one, I would feel comfortable if on 10 your first point when you started giving general 11 guidance you tried to give some general guidance about 12 what the role of a decommissioning plan is.

It 13 wouldn't be so specific that it would answer all 14 questions that would come up, but it would be nice to 15 have in one place in a form of a regulatory guide the 16 role of a decommissioning.

17 Number two, following up on your point 18 about pushing the informal hearings, et cetera, I do 19 think that, citing Commissioner Curtiss citing me, 20 which is a kind of an impersonal authority, is that 21 there be some public indication by the licensee before 22 he starts this about where he's going and what he's 23 doing and that item 3 in a public meeting might serve 24 that purpose because I think it looks terrible and it 25 is terrible that the first time the public actually NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEPS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 2000$

(202) 234 4433

--. -- I

_m.--.2_

= _ _.

80 1

gets informed is after a decommissioning plan has been 2

put in.

3 Then the third point is what goes on in a 4

4 post-effectiveness hearing sort of depends on what 5

happened before, whether the decommissioning plan is G

a surprise and therefore you need a second hearing or 7

whether it's just carrying out what was already

)

8 disclosed at this informal meeting, that we'd be quite 9

flexible.

As long as the public gets a chance to hear 10 from the licensee what's going and comment on those at 11 an early point, what happens thereafter I'd be myself 12 pretty comfortable with seeing what surprises there 13 are in the decommissioning plan, what issues come up.

1 14 MS. YOUNG:

If I could --

15 CHAIRMAN SELIN Yes, Ms. Young?

16 MS. YOUNG:

I hate to do this, but there's s

17 a concern even with recommendation 3 that the public 18 really won't have that much-information about what's 19 going to go on at the site with respect to what aro l

20 the safety or environmental consequences of those 21 actions. Normally NRC actions and applicatjons to get 22 a

particular license amendment or to get an 23 application of proof is accompanied by a safety-and 24 environmental analysis that supports it.

With 25 recommendation 3

you're just ' simply getting a

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

81 I

1 statement of, "These are the kinds of things we might 2

do."

But that information that's captured in that 3

recommendation is not specific as to how detailed and 4

what kind of analyses are required.

Right now I 5

wouldn't require any.

6 CHAIRMAN SELIN You'd have to look at 7

that in somewhat more depth to say, "Is this truly a 8

review to see if you can safely take apart some steam 9

generators without spilling radioactive water," which 10 is not what I think the objective is.

I think the i

11 objective is to lay out the overall scale so people 12 aren't surprised at how much has been done before a 13 plan has gone in.

So, we're not surprised.

14 MR. PARLER:

We would be delighted, Mr.

I 15 Chairman, to get commission guidance on' broadening the 16 scope-and the intent and the objective of 17 recommendation number 3 so that there'could be earlier 18 public awareness of what's going on-and if we do that 19 that has a potential _ for accomplishing a lot more 20 early on than would rather prolonged debate about 21 whether a hearing 'should be - formal, -inf.srmal,- before 22 the fact or after.-the fact at the -time of the 23 decommissioning plan. That's the way that I sense-the 24

-discussion.

L 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Commissioner Rogers?

L NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4413 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433-

..m.

..._.- a,_-..-.,--,---_,-_-,- _-

,-a.-.-,._..---..-..-.,-,_...___-.-..-----........-.--

83 1

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Nothing.

2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I think perhaps it's 3

called for for me to clarify my position oecausc I 4

asked some questions that might have been confusing.

5 I very much favor guidance on clarifying what we mean 6

by these various things and what peoplo can do at 7

various stages with a confirmatory action letter or a 8

POL, I favor very much allowing the licensee as much 9

flexibility as we possibly can from a

safety 10 standpoint to do things.

11 My concern is this.

The licensee has a 12 license and most of that process we considered safety i

13 from the standpoint that it was a plant that was 14 capable of operation, presumably in operation.

Very 15 little thought went into establishing tech specs and 16 so forth and what do you do when you tear one of these 17 things apart and you have some systems functional and 13 not.

My concern is that we don't just assume that 19 because the plant is shut down that there aren't some 20 safety considerations.

There's a lot of activated 21 materials, there are systems, there are gases under 22 pressure, all kind of things like this.

So, I think 23 it has to be an orderly process, that we have to 24 carefully reason out what can one do from a safety 25 standpoint and what should not be done.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDER$

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

1 1

2 83 1

That's my only concern in trying to make i

2 sure we do it in an orderly process and do think about g

i 3

these things.

We have not only the health and safety l

4 but we have environmental considerations as we go l

5 through this process.

But I favor flexibility, I i

l 6

favor guidance which would clarify what we mean by all 7

these things.

But I do think there are some safety 8

things to-think about as we proceed With 9

decommissioning.

I 10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Commissioner Curtiss?

{

l 11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I just have one 1

.12 very specific comment and one very general comment.

13 The specific comment, I would encourage 14 you to go back again and look at your proposal to i

15 treat these decisions or this decision on the 1

i 16 decommissioning plan as a

form of. regulatory 17 permission in the fashion that you've outlined.

We j

18 have been careful as an agency in interpreting the i

19 hearing rights under 189(a)(1) to provide for hearing i

20 rights only on those things which' are specified in-l 21 189 (a) (1).

Regulatory permission'is not one of those 5

22 and I think Lthere are _ great risks-attendant to-23 introducing the-notion that a regulatory permission,_

24 which in this context' includes-approval of a

o e-_

25 decommissioning order, but in, other contexts might i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

( -

- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344433 i:

a.

a.

84 1

include things like exemptions, all sorts of things on 2

which we, I think, would be loathe to broaden 189 to l

3 include hearing rights on those matters.

4 This was an issue that was raised in the 5

Shoreham context.

I think it deserves more careful 6

evaluation as to what you call this in the context of 7

what the hearing rights are.

That's my specific 8

comment; 9

My general comment is this, picking up on 10 Bill's comments at the outset.

This has been -- this 11 process that we've been engaged in over the past 12 couple of years, beginning with the first prematurely 13 shut down plant, has in some respects been a painful 14 process for the reasons that the General Counsel 15 outlined at the beginning, the difficulty of 16 communicating on these matters both within the staff 17 and between the staff and the Commission in a f ashion l

18 that frankly has occurred here and much to the benefit 19 of our effort to establish a stable, sensible, sound 20 and efficient regulatory process.

21 The only remaining lesson learned here, I 22-guess, or observation that I would have is in my 23 judgment this kind of thing, this approach, while the l

24 conclusions reflected here, recommendations that you l

25 have were certainly informed by the experience of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(?o2) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005 (202) 2344433

1 85 1

going through a Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Fort St. Vrain,

+

2 now Yankee Rowe and maybe Trojan, but certainly those 3

carly cases.

1 4

I must say that the only frustration that 5

I have is that we were not able to benefit from this 6

carlier in the process.

These issues that are 7

addressed here were all matters that were on the table 8

and discussed in the context of those prematurely shut 9

down plants and for some reasons related to events 10 beyond our control as to what the status of the 11 Shoreham facility should be that influences process.

12 There's nothing we can do about those.

But the 13 technical and the legal issues here that you set out, 14 and set out I think in a very cohesive fashion with 15 your recommendations, were all matters that could have 16 and should have been addressed two years ago at the 17 very outset, informed as we were at that time that 18 these issues were on the table.

19 My own personal view is that we put 20 licensees and their ratepayers to unnecessary expense 21 as we worked our way through these issues, significant 22 expense that served to detraI-from the funds that 23 could have been made available for decommissioning.

24 That's occurred in this case and I think we've 25 benefited from taking a hard lessons learned look at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

... ~ _,......,.. - ___-

i 4

86 i

1 the process that we went through and the approach that l

2 we ought to take on these specific issues.

l l

3 But the only remaining observation I would i

l j

4 have here is that when we confront issues like this,-

5 and not in the decommissioning context, but issues i

i 6

like this in the

future, the earliest possible l

7 opportunity for the staff, the whole staff as well as l

8 the staff with the Commission, to engage on the policy t

9 issues for the purpose of laying out fundamentally 4

j 10 sound regulatory _ approach, which you have done here, l

j 11 is something that I think we ought to keep foremost in 12 mind.

i i

13 So, with that, I commend -you for the f

14 effort that you've done.

I think it's an excellent 15 road map for how we ought to proceed.

i l

16 MR. PARLER:

Mr. Chairman, may I make two 17 comments?

4

{

18 on the hearing

question, we are i

19 particularly-mindful of.not reading anything.into the

-1

+

i 20 first sentence of-Section 189 of the Act that is not-I 21 already-th'ere.

We try't'o be conscious of that.

)

.l 22 on the other hand, even though~a hearing-_

i 23 is not required.as a matter of-law!in the 189, the 1,

24 Commission-can always - exercise its' discretion to

. 25~

provide'the public with a meaningful opportunity to be l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS a

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

3 (202) 2344433-WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -

._-._,;_-.--_.,....~..-._---___.._a

,,,m

-. ~. _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -

F 87 1

heard.

So, we'll take that suggestion under advice

(

2 very closely.

3 One of the problems in this case which -led 4

to the delay, there may be many but at least one was 5

when these issues emerged, they emerged in a heavily 6

contested case.

As I

tried to mention at the 7

beginning, we just couldn't get together and comply 8-with the separation of functions requirement

• and 9

discuss them.

Even if we had, we may well not have 10 come to grips-with them on a timely basis, but at 11 least we tried the best we could.

12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Commissioner de Plangue?

i 13

-COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Yes, just one 14 quick question.

15 In 50.82(e) there is a requirement for a 16 notice of interested parties after the decommissioning 17 plan is prepared and before commission approval.

I 18 would assume -- I'm not sure what the basis of that 19 notice is.-

Does it-presume public comment on that 20 plan =and, if so, how does that affect whether-or not 21 there's a need for_a hearing?

22 MR. MALSCH: -It says something like_after 23 notice _ to interested persons, the Commission 'will 24 improve.

25 COMMISSIONER-de PLANQUE:

Yes.-

NEAL R. GROSS -

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W,.

. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -'

(202) 234-4433

.. ~.

.u-,.-_

.._.-__.,2,,;._--

,_,2_,...

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 88 i

1 MR. MALSCH:

It implies at least a chance l

l 2

for the public to comment.

It leaves it entirely

)

3 unclear whether any hearing is involved.

There's i

4 another statement that's made in the rule preamble I

5 that further confuses the issue because it says that 6

decommissioning takes place under an amended license, 7

implying that somehow there's a license amendment involved here also. That clearly involves a hearing.

8 l

9 But.as we learned in Shoreham, it wasn't i

10 clear exactly which amendments were really needed et 1

j 11 that point in time.

So, the whole situation ended up 12 being kind of confused.

l l

13 If I

go back and look

.at the i

l 14 decommissioning rule, I think that one problem here is l

15 that the drafters of the rule did not have in mind the 16 broad _ scope of 50.59 activities that we now have in 1

I l

17 mind.

So, they in fact thought merely by virtue of j

18 the operation of 50.59 that not a whole lot could be 19 done prior to approval of the-decommissioning plan and i

20 that the plan itself would then amend the license as l

6 21 necessary.

That turns out to have been a not entirely 22 correct assumption.

~

23 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

-Yes.

J I

- 24' MS. YOUNG:

And then also the experience 25 with decommissioning in the past, most people had gone 1

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 -

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006..

(202) 2544433

).

__,_.-w.._

~..~

..s

~,.._,_,

_.. _ _.. _ _. _ _. _. _ - _ =. _ _ _. _ _. _. _. _.. _.. _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _. _ _ _

i 89

^

4 4 1

the SAFSTOR route that would necessarily include some l ',

2 type of modification to your tech specs, which would 3

be licence amendraents, which means you'd get that

(

w notice and an opportunity for hearing attendant with I

4 1,

5 those requests.

6 CHAIRMAN SELIN This has been a

f i

7 stimulating discussion, very interessing, very 4

8 helpful; I think you might expect to get guidanch in several stages.

I think what we'll try to do is there f

10 are some points that perhaps we can move on quickly i

11 for the benefit of the staff and the licensees who are 12 faced with immediate issues and others might take a 13 little more time.

14 George Santiana once said those who don't 15 know history are fated to relive it, but I've decided 16 since I've come here those who do know history alau 17 are fated to relive it.

So, let's try to get on from 18 here and get these --

19 MR. PARLER:

Until we-get _ the further-20 guidance and the guidance is implemented, as I

21 understand it, we will continue to operate under the 22 guidance that we have, which I believe requires the 23' case by case decommissioning approval be_sent to the-24 Commission'such as Fort St. Vrain and others.

We'11 25 proceed on the case by. case basis that we.have in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 :

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$

-- (202) 2344433 ~

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

4 90 1

past.

2 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Thank you.

s 3

(Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m.,

the abovo-4 entitled matter was concluded.)

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

1

's lj ;

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 2

This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting.

l-of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ent.tled:'

i v

IITLE OF MEETING:

BRIEFING BY OGC ON REGULATORY _ ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONG PROCEEDINGS t

PLACE OF MEETING:

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:

NOVEMBER 24, 1992 9

were transcri, bed'by me. I further certify that said transcription 3.

i is accurate and complete, to the best of-my ability, and that the t

transcript.is a true'and accurate: record of the forego 1ug events.

1 bd4&8 h4".d t

i i

f Reporter's name:

PETER LYNCE

}

(

4 4

}-

l h

i s

NEAL R. GROSS.

Covet Rt*ORTERS AND TRAN5CaletRS 1312 RMCDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433

. WASHINGTON. D.C.-- 20005 (202) 232 6600

.. -.. -