1988/06/27-les hearing - applicant exhibit 120, 'general … · 2012-11-21 · i 1?a5...

i 1?A5 I1338'I.P. I . % .

24016 Feder~a.i lRegiatar / Vol. 53, No.. i23 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations24M. .. F~eraiq"R' d eplaion

198 marketing order expendituresfor.Marketing Order Nos. 921, 1122, and924.

For Washington peaches,expenditures-of $18,378 and anassessment rate of $2.25 per toWi ofpeaches under MO. 921 wererecommended. In comparison, 1987-88budgeted expenditures were $45,138 andthe assessment rate was $2.00 :per ton.On May 27,1988, the Washington PeachMarketing Committee met and revisedtheir assessment rate to $1.20 per ton ofpeaches and revised the crop estimate.Assessment income for 198-81 isestimated at $14,p40 based on therevised crop estimate of 11,700 tons ofpeaches. Committee reserves and otherJunds will be available to cover theanticipated $4,338 deficit for 1988-89.

For Washington apricots,expenditures of $8,970 and anassessment rate of $225 per ton ofapricots under MO. 922 wererecommended by the SFEMC. Incomparison, 1987-8 budgetedexpenditures were $5,802 and theassessment rate was $1.25 per lon. OnMay 27,1988, the Washington ApricotMarketing Committee met and revisedtheir assessment rate to $2.00 pdr ton ofapricots. Assessment Income for 1988-89Is estimated at $7,000 based on a cropestimate of 3,500 tons of apricots.

For Washington-Oregon prures.expenditures of $17,342 and anassessment rate of $2.25 per ton ofprunes under M.O 924 wererecommended by the SFEMC. i'comparison, 1987- budgetedexpenditures were $29,482 and theassessment rate was $3.00 per ton. OnMay 27,1988. the Washington-OregonFresh Prune Marketing Committee metand revised their assessment rmte to$1.00 per ton of fresh prunes and revisedthe crop estimate. Assessment incomefor 1988-89 Ia estimated at $9,300 Basedon the revised crop estimate of 9,300tons of fresh prunes. Committee reserveiand other funds will be available tocover the anticipated $8,042 deflcit for1988-89.

While this final action will imposesome additional costs on handl 3rs, thecosts are in the form of uniformassessments on all handlers. Sc me ofthe additional costs may be passed on tcproducers. However, these costs will besignificantly offset by the benefitsderived from the operation of themarketing orders. Therefore, theAdministrator of the AMS hasdetermined that this action will not havya significant economic Impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

This action adds new 11 921.Z27,922.227, and 924.228, and Is basaed oncommittee recommendations arid other

Information. A proposed rule waspublished In the May 13,1988, Issue ofthe Federal Register (53 FR 17058).Comments on th:3 proposed rule wereInvited from Interested persons untilMay 23,1988. Comments were receivedfrom the Washington Peach MarketingCommittee, the Washington ApricotMarketing Committee, and theWashington-Oregon Fresh PruneMarketing Committee, In which theyrequested the est ablishment of revisedassessment ralen and/or crop estimates:

After consideration of the Informationand recommendations submitted by thecommittees, the comments received, andother available I nformatlon, it Is foundthat this final rule will tend to effectuatethe declared policy of the Act.

These budgets and assessment ratesshould be expedited because thecommittees need. to have sufficientfunds to pay their expenses, which areIncurred on a continuous basis. Inaddition. handlemrs are aware of thisaction, which wtis recommended by thecommittees at public meetings.Therefore, the Secretary also finds thatgood cause exists for not postponing theeffective date of this action until 30 daysafter publication In the Federal Registeri5 U.S.C. 553).List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 921, 922,and 924

Apricots, Marketing agreements andorders, Oregon, Peaches, Prunes,Washington.

For the reasons set forth In thepreamble, new i 921.227, 922.227. and924.228 are adde-i as follows:

Note.Thess sections will not appear Inthe Code of Federal Regulations.

1. The authority citation for 7 CFRParts 921, b2=, and 924 continues to readas follows:

Authority Secs. 1-19, 48 Stal. 34, asamended; 7 U.8.C. U0.74.

2. New I1 921.227,922.227, and924.228 are added to read as follows:

PART 921-FRESH PEACHES GROWNIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES INWASHINGTON

i 92i.227 Expenties and assusment rate.

Expenses of $18,378 by theWashington Fresh Peach MarketingCommittee are authorized. and anassessment rate of $1.20 per ton ofassessable peaches is established forthe fiscal-year ending March 31,1989.Unexpended funds may be carried overas a reserve.

PART 922-APRICOTS GROWN INDESIGNATED COUNTIES INWASHINGTON

I 922.227 Expenses and assessment rate.Expenses of $S,970 by the Washington

Apricot Marketing Committee areauthorized, and an assessment rate of$2.00 per ton Is established for the fistalyear ending March 31 1989.Unexpended funds may be carried overas a reserve.

PART 924-FRESH PRUNES GROWNIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES INWASHINGTON AND UMATILLACOUNTY, OREGON;

* 924.228 Expenses afid assessment rate.Expenses of $17,342 by the

Waslaington-Oregon Fresh PruneMarketing Committee are authorized,and an assessment rate of $1.00 per tonof assessable prunes is established forthe fiscal year ending March 31, 198.Unexpended funds may be carried overas a reserve.

Dated: June 22 1988.William 1. Doyle,Associate Deputy Director. Fruit andVegetable Division. AgriculturalMarketingService.IFR Doc. W814373 Filed -24-08; 8:45 am]BUMLCO 4OO S4150.O21M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30,40, 50, 1,70, and 72

General Requirements forDecommissloning Nuclear Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Is amending Its regulationsto setforth technic Ian nc al5criteria for deco sal icl nslnuclear facilities, 1 a dea dregulations addresdec Iss lnliplanning needs, ti ng, ng Imethods, and env nm re erequirements. The tent of e .amendments Is to suradecommissioning o all e d- .facilities will be ac omrn 14 sIfeand timely manner ndlatde~ aat1 M ;licensee funds will e a leis for thispurpose. The finalI also e; nta i aresponse to a peti.ln lemakin3(PRM-50-22), conc in I idecommissioning fi anc I sswranciinitially filed by th ub terist

jjElExh i124

I

I*HeinOnline -- 53 1'ed. Reg. 24018 1988

Templale -. 5 a cv- 0 Rg' ,se C>- o.1

IM NUCLEANKAMrnOSVb. rcioommew ~yS^*V;CS,/-jO9

DoddNMRC-3o3 l SiftW ____-a

urI . ~ }nrrck- Mstaf o -

"S DOCKETEDUSNRC

2008 iMMA I 3 P,1 3: 25

l'r.- ox TE SECRETAR6'

AVJUDICA 1 IOIfS Sr-AFF f

1i

i.i I

Federal Register / VI. 63, flu. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 24019!

lResearch Group (PIRG), et ai. on July 5,1977.!1FFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1988.FOR FURfI4R INFORMATION CON1ACT.fl< Steyer. C. Feldman orF. Cardile, Offceof Nuclear Regulatory Research, iS.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)'i9Z-3824.ISUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

introductionThe NRC Is amending its regulations

to provide specific requirements for thediecommissioning of nuclear facilltlesipecifically the regulations establishriteria In the following areas:Acceptable odecommisfsiosnienltematives; planning fordecommissioning; assurance of theavallabilily of unds fordecommissioning; and environmentalreview requirements related todlecommissloning.

Deco'mmissioning as deoned la therule means to remove nuclear fa illties"afely from service and to reduceresidual radioactivity to a level Ihatpermits release of the property f)riinreitricted use and terminatior of thellcdnsb: Decommissloning activilies areInitiated when a licensee decidee toIlaminate licensed activities.D)ecommissioning actiyities do notInclude the removal and disposal of"ipent fuel which Is considered to be anoperational activity or the removal anddisposal of nonradloactive structures.nnd materials beyond that.necea sary toterminate ihe NRC license. Disposal ofnonradloactlve.hazardous'wastemnot,necessary fir NRC llcense termlatlon isnot covered by these regulatlonr butwould be treated by other appropriateagencies h4ving responsibil4.d aierthese wastes. If nuclear facilities ire to)e reused for nuclear purposes,.

appliqations for license renewal oramendment or for a new license areuubmitted according to the appropriateoxisting regulation. Reuse of aniclearI acility for other nuclear purpososis notc onsidered decommnisslonihgbei:ausethe facillty remains under licenss. -

*These amendments apply to tiedecommissioning of power reactors.nonpower reactors, fuel reproceissitigplants. fuel fabrication plants, uaaniumlidxafluoride production plants.Independent spent fuel-storageInstallations, and nonfuel-cycle nuclearlacilitles. The decommiasioningf mfuranium mills and mill tailings, IDw-leveiwaste burial facilities, and high-levelwaste repositorles;bas been treated Ineparale regulatory aciions.Theie

uimendments apply-to nuclear fae:illtiqsthat operate through their normaI

lifetime, as well bt to those.that may be of a generic environmental Impactshut down prematirely. statement (GElS), and based -on these,

The purpose of these amendments is the development of amendments to theto assure that decommisslonings will be regulations. The Information base forcarried out with minimal Impact on preparation of the final rule Is completepublic and occupational health and and consists primarily of a series ofsafety and the environment The NUREG/CR reports on studies of theCommission's objective Is thatl technology, safety, and costs ofdecommisdsooned f[cility sites would decommissioning various kinds ofultimately be available for unrestricted nuclear facilities. These reports wereuse for any public or private purpose. prepared by Battelle Pacific NorthwesfThe amendments provide a regulatory Laboratories (PNL).A In addition,framework for more efficient and preliminary staff positions on the majorconsistent licensing actions related to deconmissionin& 11sues have beendecommissioning. Although presented in staff (NUREG) rep9rts. Ondecommissioning Is not an Imminent Pebruaryi0 1981, the Commissionhealth and safety problem, the nuclear announced the availability of the draftindustry Is maturing, in that nuclear GEIS for public comment (46 FR 11688).facilities have been operating for a Section 15 of the draft GElS containsnumber of years. and the number and certailn policy recommendations. Thesecoinplexitly of facililtes that will require' recommendations, as modified bydecommissioning Is expected to Increase comments received on the draft GEISuni theinear future Inadeuate or , and other sources, provided the basis foruntimely conalderatlonlof the proposed amendmnenti to thedecommissioning. specifically In the Commission's regulations.areas of planning and financial On February 11, 1985. the Commissionassurance, could result In significant published a Notice of Pcoposedadverse health, saFety and, Rulemaking on.Decommissiop~ingenvirdimental ilnpacts. these Impacts Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FRcould lead to Incrased occupational 66o). The proposed amendmentsand public doses Increased amounts of c-overed a number of topics related toradloactive waste to be disposed of, and decommissioning that would bean increase in the number of I t . appllcable to 10 CFR Parts 30.40, 50,70.contaminated siteii. 'The regulations a' Aansa4lcseThmake clear that the lc1risee'is 1 ndf72 appicants and licensees, The

repnibefr the funding ai .o~j'in~A1lpommpnt period wes-due toreponilble fr te funding ind expire May a, 1985, but was extendedcomple lion of decoromiteion p i inc a to July 13. 1985 to accommodatemanner whtch yC otuticb pubioc es th requests from Iplerested parties for anaid sateetys Currert riulatiosi cover the extended comment perloi4 irk order. ididquitements edulratr ; fullj evatuate'the issues ralsea apddecdmmisslorinri rh a iinited way and develop commen ts on the-propdsed rule.are iidt fu*l~ adeqiaate'to ddatiitl . hIpodsdruercensee decommlelonin t iqiireaitnth Public comments recelyed oh the

effectively. Many licensing adti lits' rfopoped rule, were docket d and mayeonoemning decommissioning have Document Romh localed tit 1717 H.bis.be detret N.nd Ica Y.'Cand W'riN*, Washington, DC.bssThis ptocedure results in' . . Aqceptalle I leve~ls of'residualicensisee itaff defalineeded f licensees .radioacvity for release of property forand In inefficient :nd unnecessary t be padministrative effort. With theincreased uuse were not proposed asPumber o fsd eosissonins tepeed , prt of this rulemnaking. Commissioncae-eby-case procedures wo1J idImake staf Isparticipating in an interagencylicensing difficult and in'treasE NRC end worklin group, organized. by thelicensee staff r6e6urEies needed for theser Envisprenttal .Protction Agency (EPA),activities. to Federl gurdtnct on this**

subject. Proposed Federal~guidelines areBackground m .peaic rcipitd to be published by -EPA and

On Morch 13,t t 178the Commiso . EPA:hei'islotueden advance notice ofpubllihed ari Advance Notite 'of . jrcposed rulemaking (51 FR 22284, June

* Propoed Rulemaking In thiethed qrl I'8, 1p08 ,Iiin'thEir Interim. NRC Is sReltsior (43 FR 10170) stating the developtp Interim guidance withCommission was lhevalpatiep Its. R . respectt t residual contamilnatindedommissioning policy and cohaidering. cdtr~ie."*.. .

I amendments to Ito regulations lo' *-

provide mo'rispecifi requlitemnerlti . Abibioiortphy ~frthePNL and RC'islrfeporisrelating to thedecommlissioning of n.~'d I .bdoud documen~ts isncluded at the

nu'ce~r aciitie. 'h. par~for he lb oft~ svApplmsntaY infrmnatiom. Thesenalpr eclitn.rhe pln or hedqWnmenisa ayeavqiisbts for insptclion and copying

reevaluation included the. deyelopihefit rfit res in Jh oipmission's Public Docmenidfan informitoionbase, the preparation .' Room di 7171HStresS NW, washington,.DC20555

HeinOnline -- 53 :Fed. Reg. 24019 1988

24020 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

Overview of Comments on ProposedRule

A total of 143 different organizationsand Individuals submitted comments onthe proposed rule. The commentersrepresented a variety of interests.Comments were received from Federalgovernment agencies, State agencies(including State public utilitycommissions), local governments,universities, individuals, electricutilities, material licensees, publicgroups, utility and industry groups, andfinancial, legal. and engineering firms.The commenters offered from one toover 60 comments each and presented adiversity of views. The topics addressedby the commenters addressed a widerange of Issues and all parts of the rule.

The general response to the rule wasvaried. A number of commentersspecifically expressed support for therule in general for that no comment wasneeded), although some of these madesuggestions for improvements. Onecommenter Indicated that the proposedamendments will provide a foundationfrom which acceptable decommissioningplanning and implementation programscan be developed, and another indicatedthat the Commission's assumptionsunderlying the proposed rule arereasonable and fair. Many specificallycommented on the need for rulemaking.For example, one commenter stated thatalthough some states have begundeveloping regulations, their efforts arehampered by the lack of Federalguidelines and another commenter urgedthe Commission to quickly promulgate acomprehensive set of regulationsgoverning the planning, safety, and

nancing of decommissioning. OthersImplied the need for rulemaking but feltthat the proposed rule was Inadequateto satisfy Its intent and generallyrecommended stricter, more detailedregulations. A few of these suggestedthe rule be redrafted and republished forcomment. In contrast, some commnentersargued that existing rules were adequateand that this rule was unnecessary,overly prescriptive, and burdensome.For example, one commenter indicatedthat there is no evidence fromexperience with power reactors thatthere would be any adverse Impacts Inthe absence of this rule and that thisrule represented an unfair burden tonuclear power facilities compared toother public risks; and another pointedout that decommissioning methods areregulated by public utility commissionsand that NRC should only step In toensure safety.

The detailed rationale supportingthese general comments is presented inthe succeeding sections of this

Supplementary Information.Modifcations have been made to therule as a result of some of these morespecific comments.Based on Itsconsideration of the comments, theCommission continues to believe thatthe rule's approach presents the bestavailable method for assuring thatlicensees develop plans sufficient tocarry out decommissioning in a mannerwhich protects public health and safety.

Major Issues contained In the publiccomments and resulting changes In therule are discussed below. The detailedresponses to individual comments aredocumented In NUREG-221 entitled"Summary. Analysis and Response toPublic Comments on Proposed RuleAmendments on DecommissioningCriteria for Nuclear Facilities" (Ref. 286)Copies of NUREG-1221 may bepurchased through the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, P.O. Box 37082,Washington, DC 01S-7082. Copiesmay also be purchased from theNational Technical Information Service,U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 PortRoyal Road, Springfield, Vs 22161. Acopy Is available for inspection orcopying for a fee In the NRC PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street NW,Washington. DC 20555. The discussionof comments in this SupplementaryInformation Is structured according tothe general subjects treated by the ruleand discussed In the SupplementaryInformation to the Proposed Rule. Thesesubjects Include, In order of discussion,decommissioning alternatives andtiming, planning, financial assurance.residual radioactivity limits,environmental review requirements. andother general comments.Summary and Discussion of Commentson Proposed RuleA. Decommissioning Alternatives and'Timing

Comments received on the subject ofdecommissioning alternatives coveredseveral areas. These Includedclarification of the definition ofdecommissioning, criteria used for thechoice of the alternative In particularcases, and general questions as toacceptability of the decommissioningalternatives.

1. Definition of decommissioning. Twocommenters indicated that requiringunrestricted use as part of the definitionof decommissioning Is too restrictive.Reasons given for this comment includethe fact that It would Inhibit future useof the site and would precludealternative decornmissloning methodswhich Provide reasonable assurance ofpublic health and safety withoutreleasing the site for unrestricted use. ,n

contrast four commenters stated thatdecommissioning should clearly result insafe unrestricted use of the site.

In response. It is the Commission'sbelief that there Is nothing in thedefinitron which would inhibit future useof the site once the license Is terminated,According to amended I 50.2 (andrelated sections In the other parts)decommissioning Is defined as resultingin release of the property forunrestricted use and termination of thelicense. Unrestricted use refers to thefact that from a radiological standpoint.no hazards exist at the site, the licensecan be terminated, and the site can beconsidered dn unrestricted area. Thisdefinition is consistent with thedefinition of an unrestricted area as itexists in 10 CFR 20.3 as being "any areaaccess to which is not controlled by thelicensee for purposes of protection ofIndividuals from exposure to radiationand radioactive materials and any areaused for residential quarters." Thealternatives for decommissioningprovide different ways to accomplishdecommissioning as defined in the rule;i.e., alternative ways to reduce residualradioactivity to a level permittingrelease of the property for unrestricteduse and termination of license. Thesealternatives are DECON, SAFSTOR. andENTOMB which are discussed in moredetail below but which primarily consistof activities which either result inprompt dismantlement of the facility orwhich permit a storage period duringwhich radioactive decay can occur priorto dismantlement of the facility. Each ofthe alternatives Includes all thoseactivities necessary to lead totermination of the NRC license. Oncethe license Is terminated, the facilitybuildings and site can be used for anyother non-nuclear purposes, includingindustrial purposes. The use made of thefacility after termination of the NRClicense is independent of the alternativeused to decommission the facility. Withregard to reuse of the site for nuclearpurposes, there Is nothing in the rulepreventing such reuse. As indicatedabove, reuse of the nuclear facility forother nuclear purposes Is not considereddecommissioning. Therefore, a licenseewould not be required to submit adecommissioning plan or apply fortermination of license.

As noted in Sections A.2 through A.4of this Supplementary Information, therule considers the use of alternativedecommissioning methods which delaythe completion of decommissioningthereby not releasing the site forunrestricted use during a period ofradioactive decay. The definition ofdecommissioning as well as the

- HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24020 1988

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 24021a

definitions of the alternatives containedirs the Supplementary Information to theproposed rule Indicate that, if peimanentcessation of nuclear activity occurs att:,e facility, the licensee Is to propose toNIRC the method that it intends to use indecommissioning the facility In amanner ultimately leading to the returncf the site to an "unrestricted areas"according to the definition of 10 CFR20.3 and the termination of the facilitylic ense. in determining whether aparticular site is free from radiologicalhazards, the Commission will tale ahard look at the extent to which the sitehas been previously used to dispose oflow-level radioactive wastes by landburial and will decide what remedialmeasures. Including removal of sichwaste offalte, are appropriate before thesite can be released for unrestric ed useand the license termninited.

Six cormenters indicated that therale needed to provide clarification as towhat facilities are covered by thed ecoMWnissloning rule. Thesecommenters indicated that thereappeared to be a discrepancy betweenale proposed I 50.2 which define Idecommissioning as removing a facility"safely from service and reducinijresidual radioactivity to a level thatp ermis release of the property fc runrestricted use and termination oflicense" and the SupplementaryI iformation which Indicates thatdecommissioning means to remove"nuclear facilities" from serviceincluding "the site, buildings andcontents, and equipment associa'.edvilth any licensed NRC actlvitj" Twocomnenters Indicated that the ruleshould clarify that It does not apply tohe nonradioactive portion of the

facility.In response to this comment, the

definition of decommissioning In 1 30.2clearly defines what Is Intended by thisralemaking. namely thatdecommissioning Involves thoseactivities necessary to remove a racilitysafely from service and to reduceresidual radioactivity to a level thatpermits release of the property fcrunrestricted use mnd'terminatlon oflicense. Section 50.82 Indicates tWat alicensee must provide NRC with a planindicating how these activities will be'

carried out and that this plan will beapproved if It demonstrates that ahedecommissioning will be performed In asafe manner. Section 50.82(f) indicatesthat the NRC will terminate the ficilitylicense If the terminal radiation surveyclemonstrateas that residual radioactivitytas been reduced such that the facilityand site are suitable for release forUnrestricted use, The definition of

decommissioning Ir 1.50.2 Is general andIts application In any given case willdepend on specific circumstances.

The decommissioning rule applies tothe site, buildings and contents, andequipment aisociated with a nuclearfacility that are or become contaminatedduring the time the facility Is licensed,and to activities related to the definitionof "decommission" Inthe amendedregulations. The decommissioning rulewill not apply to the disposal ofnonradioactive structures and materialsbeyond that necessary to terminate theNRC license. Disposal of nonradioactivehazardous waste n Di necessary for NRClicense termination Is not covered bythese regulations but would be treatedby other appropriale agencies havingresponsibility over these wastes.

2. Criteria used for choice ofalternative. A number of commentersindicated that the rule does not containsufficient criteria that a utility can use Inchoosing which decommissioningalternative should be used and that canbe used in the review and evaluation ofthat choice. Some of these commenterspointed out that these criteria shouldfactor in important considerations to bemade in the choice, Including clarifyingwhat Is sufficient benefit for delayingdecommissioning, and that the choice ofalternative be base d on a detailedassessment demonstrating that thehealth and safety cf the public Isprotected. These commenters Indicatedthat better criteria on sufficient benefitsshould be included In the rule,specifically the degree of reduction inoccupational radiation exposure,generation and disposal of waste,assurance that decommissioning willtake place, radiation doses to the public.and quality of decommissioningoperations. Other :ommentersmentioned that economic or otherfactors should also be Included as beingsufficient benefit, Including comparativecost of alternatives, presence of otherfacilities at ihe site, development of newdecommissioning techniques, and needto store wastes or ispent fuel at the site.Some commenters Indicated that It wasnot satisfactory to Include criteria onacceptable alternatives in regulatoryguides as is proposed in the statement ofconsiderations while other commentersindicated that It Is.

In response, It should be noted thatthe intent of the rule Is to provide thenecessary guidelines with regard to useof decommissiloning alternatives In amanner which protects the public healthand safety. Specifl-ally. the ruleIncludes requirements that, at the timeof termination of operations, licenseessubmit a decommissioning plan to the

NRC which contains an indication of thedecommissioning alternative to be usedand a description of the activitiesInvolved pnd the controls and limits onprocedures to protect occupational andpublic health and safety for thatalternative. Discussion of how thedecommissioning plan and the chosenalternative are evaluated In terms ofprotecting health and safety is containedbelow In Section 32.

In addition, § 50.82 of the proposed.rule stipulated that alternatives whichsignificantly delay completion ofdecommissioning, such as use of astorage period. will be acceptable Ifsufficient benefit results. This section ofthe proposed rule has been modified Intwo ways. The first is to be moredefinitive In terms of acceptabledecommissioning alternatives bypermitting power reactors to usealternatives which provide forcompletion of decommissioning within80 years. This Is consistent with thetechnical data base developed as part ofthe rulemaking (Refi. 2 and 3) and withthe conclusions of the SupplementaryInformation to the Proposed Rule. In tbeSupplementary Information, it wasIndicated that DECON or SAFSTOR forup to 50 years are reasonable options fordecommissioning a light water powerreactor. The reason for both of thesealternatives being acceptable is thatboth have benefits and both are capableof being carried out in a manner whichprotects publid health and safety. Inselecting 60 years as an acceptableperiod of time for decommissioning of anuclear power reactor, the Commissioneonsldered the amount of radioactive

ecay likely to occur during an-approximate 50-year storage period andthe number of months expected to beneeded to dismantle the facility (Refs. 2and 3). In addition to this change. themodified rule also states thatconsideration will be given to a.decommissioning alternative whichprovides-for completion ofdecommissioning beyond 60 years forpower reactors only when necessary toprotect public health and safety.Factors, set out in the modified rule.which would be considered In'evaluating an alternative whichprovides for completion ofdecommissioning beyond eo yearsInclude unavailability of waste disposalcapacity and other site specific factorsaffecting capability to carry outdecommissioning safely, includingpresence of other nuclear facilities at thesite.

Section 50,82(b)(1) of the proposedrule has also been modified-fornonpower reactors. Because of the

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed Reg. 24021 a988 -

24022 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No 13 / Monday June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

variety of type of these reactors, specificcriteria on time periods for completingdecommissioning, such as indicatedabove for power reactors, are notIncluded for nonpower reactors.However, the proposed rule has beenmodified to provide additional detail onthe factors affecting acceptability ofdecommissioning alternatives fornonpower reactors. These factorsInclude considerations affecting wastedisposal for the different alternativesand other site-specific factors affectingcapability to carry out decommissioningoperations safely, such as presence ofother nuclear facilities at the site andreduction of occupational and publicradiation exposures associated with thedifferent alternatives. Other factors notrelated to protection of health andsafety are not Included in theconsideration of alternatives In themodified rule. In addition, RegulatoryGuide 1.8e will be revised to provideadditional guidance on thedecommissioning alternatives,specifically guidance on the factorsaffecting delay in completion ofdecommissioning. Use of the modifiedrule in conjunction with the regulatoryguidance will provide for an expeditiouslicensing procedure. A licensee'sproposed decommissioning alternativewill be reyiewed based on the criteriaand guidance discussed here end InSection D.2 for 'acceptability In terms ofcompleting decommissioning andprotecting public health and saiety.

One commenter noted that neither theNRC nor the licensees can properlyassess costs and benefits attributable todifferent alternatives due to the lack ofsufficient Information on occupationalexposure. The commenter noted thatNRC had no experience withdecommissioning large, aged reactorsand that, for example, the experience atthe cleanup at TMI-2 had shown theworkers were being exposed toradiation levels six times higher thanexpected. Thus, It Is likely thedecommissioning estimates of exposureare gross underestimates In addition,the commenter stated that there Is'muchuncertainty with regard to radiationeffectsOn human health. Furthermore,the'cominenter indicated that theGeneric EhVirronmehtal ImpactStatement on Decommissioning(NUREG-0588) (Ref.'20), whidh providesa basis for this rulemaking, does notadequately address health and geneticeffectsi Hende the commenter noted IttsdIfficult to assess the proper alternativeand that, In any event, In makingassessments NRC should use.cunservallve estimates.

In responding to this comment Itshould be noted that NRC has hadBattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.(PNL) prepare detailed analyses of thetechnology, safety, and costs ofdecommissioning. These reports wereprepared for a number of nuclearfacilities and are listed In the Referencesection. The PNL reports containestimates of expected occupationalradiation exposures based on ananalysis of work activities Involved indecommissioning and radiation levelsexpected at the end of reactor life..

While It is true that no large, agedreactors have been decommissioned, thePNL reports represent a reasonableanalysis of the occupational dose whichwould be Incurred at decommissioning.They provide sufficient Information onwhich assessment of differentalternatives can be made, specificallythat DECON can be carried out whilemaintaining occupational exposures atreasonable levels while SAPSTOR andENTOMB can result In-reduction Inoccupational exposures. Thus, choice ofthe alternative can be made.

It should be noted that for any of the'alternaUves, occupational exposureswill be limited by the requirements of 10CFR Part 20 and that, in particular,licensees should maintain exposures toworkers to as low as reasonablyachievable levels. Thus, radiationexposure to workers will be kept'atacceptable levels for any of thealternatives used. The health Impacts ofradiation and concerns over whetherlimits on exposure should be raised orlowered are out ide the scope of thisrulemaking and are the type of issuesbeing addressed currently In 's separate

- rulemaking that proposes to aniend 10CFR Part 20. The allowed occupationalexposures during the decommissioningperiod will conform to the requirementsof 10 CFR Part 20. The GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement(NUREG-0588) (Ref. 20) analyzed theoccupational exposures which would bereceived during decommissioning andfound tbat over a 4-year wdecommissioning period they would besimilar to that which would beexperienced at an operating facility orqayearly basis. Thus, NRC determined that,the health impact of decommissioningdid not add significantly to the operatingplant impact.

In summary, the Information currentlyavailable provides NRC with a.reasonable understanding of the safetyaspects involved in decommissioning,and also provides suffcient informationto pvaldate alternatives. As more'Informationbecomesavailable, NRCwill factor it Into the decision-making

process. It Is not feasible to compare theIncreases In the estimates at TMi-2 todecommissioning since the TMI-2estimates were for a post-accidentsituation where there was significantcontamination and the;situation wasInitially uncertain with regard tocontamination levels and cleanupprocedures. When licensees preparetheir deconnisslioning plans forsubmittal to the NRC for approval underthe requirements of 10 CFR 50.82 theywill have more Information about theconditions In the reactor and willprovide more up-to-date Informationabout occupational exposures duringdecommissioning. At that time NRC willbe able to evaluate the choice ofdecommissioning alternative for thespecific facility.

3. DECON and SAFSTORDecommissioning Alternatives. DECONand SAFSTOR are defined In theSupplementary Information to theproposed rule as follows: DECON Is thealternative In which the equipment,structures, and portions of a facility andsite containing radioactive contaminantsare removed or decontaminated to alevel that permits the property to bereleased for unrestricled use shortlyafter cessation of operations; SAFSTORIs the alternative In which the nuclearfacility Is placed and maintained In acondition that allows the nuclear facilityto be safely 'stored and subsequentlydecontaminated (deferreddecontamination) to levels that permitrelease for unrestricted use.,

A number of commenters expressedopinions oh the rule with regard toallowing use'of DECON and SAFSTOR.Sorne commenters favored the use ofDECON, one In particular noting that itshould be used at a site of high potentialfor a seismic evqnt. Other commentersnoted the problems associated withDECON Including the higher -

occupational exposure involved 'andproblems associated with inability todispose.of wastes. Some commentersnoted that site specific factors shouldcome Into play and that either DECONor SAFSTOR should be possible. Some,comdenters noted that because ofproblems associated with DECON, thatSAFSrOR we the best option. Two.commenteui'expressed the qpinion thatthe rule teems to favor use of DECONfor reactors.

The NRC Is aware of and hasconildered the issues related to theadvantages.and dlsadvantagies'of theDECON and SAFSTOR optlons:The.ttudie don~e for NRC by Diattelle PacificNorthwest Laboratory (PNL) consideredfactors such as cost of the alternative'and occupational exposure and waste

.

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24022 1988

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 1ia ./ Monday, June 27,4 1988 4...Rul.s. and: RegulatlpnsK.. 24023

volumes associated with eachalternalive. The PNL studies alacconsidered the effects ondecommissioning of interim inability todispose of wastes offuite. The GenericEnvironmnental impact Statement onlDecommissioning Nuclear Pacililles( NUREG-0580) (Ref. 20) prepared byINRC also addressed the advantages anddisadvantages of DECON versusSAFSTOR Including the fact thatDECON releases the site for unn'stricteduse in a much shorter time period thanBAFSTOR, whereas use of SAPSTORwould reduce occupational exposuresand waste volumes. Both jf thesisalternatives satisfy the definitlor; ofdecommissioning in I 502. Based on thedocuments indicated above and on thediscussion In the SupplementarylInformation to the proposed rule, theconclusion of the Supplementaryinformation regarding these twoilternatives is that DECON or 30- to 50-Hear SAFSTOR are reasonable optionsFor decommnlssloning light water powerreactors As indicated In Section A.2tthe proposed rule has been modified topermit use of DECON or SAPSTOR forup to 60 years as long as It Isdemonstrated that they will beperformed In a manner which pnrtectspublic health and safety. Use of the 60-vear time period in the modified rule isnot Intended to mean that if DECON Isselected that it would be accepts ble forit to last that long; periods of 5-1) yearsWould be more reasonable for DICON.

With regard to SAFSTOR, sixcommenters stated that the rule l bouldcontain requirements that If the3AFSTOR alternative Is chosen, reactordecommissioning be completedlollowing storage periods of a maximumof 30-50 years because after this timeperiod there will be little benefit in dose*or waste volume reduction. In contrast.Iour commenters stated that even a 100-year period was too restrictive b ecauseperiods of over 100 years are allc wed inwaste disposal facilities. Fourc ommenters indicated that the ruleshould provide criteria by which theappropriate length of time for the2torage period of SAFSTOR can bedetermined, balancing site-specUic coatsand benefits.

The Commission does not believe Itnecessary for the rule to contain anabsolute time limit on how longiIAFSTOR can last. Instead, as n ted In1iection AZ. modified § 50.82(b)indicates that a power reactor licensee'sdecommissIoning plan must indicate achoice of decommissioning alteruative,that DECON or 60-year SAFSTOR Issicceptqble, and that consideration willIle given to alternative methods for

decommissioning which provide forcompletion of decommissioning beyond60 years when necessary to protectpublic behith and uafety. Factorsconsidered In evaluating an alternativewhich provides for completion ofdecommissioning beyond 60 yearsinclude lack of waste disposal capacityor other factors aflecting safety,including presence of other nuclearfacilities on the site. The rule does notcontain a specific I Imitation on thelength of time for StAFSTOR beyond thetime periodIndlcated In the modifiedrule. The casemby-case considerations,such as shortage of radioactive wastedisposal space offiute or presence of anadjacent reactor whose safety might beaffected by dismantlement procedures.or other similar site specificconsiderations, mean that theappropriate delay for a specific facilitymust be based on factors unique to thatfacility and could result In extension ofcompletion of decommissioning beyond60 years. Based on this, the NRCconsiders the setting of an absolute timelimit on SAPSTOR to be impractical andunnecessary. In addition1 the expectedrevisions to Regialntory Guide 1.6setting out guidance on the factorsdiscussed above vdill provide the NRCthe fexibility to considerspecific caseswhile still providing assurance that thehealth and safety of the public Isprotected.

Although the final rule does notcontain specific restrictions on the time-period Involved for delay In completionof decommissioning, the SupplementaryInformation to the proposed rule doesindicate that this period should be onthe order of 100 ye are because this isconsidered a reasonable time period forreliance on Institutional control.Although commenters refer to longerperiods of storage for waste disposalfacilities there are somd differencesbetween these two situations whichmust be considered, Including the factthat in the case of the waste disposalfacility the NRC transfers the license forthe facility to the State or Federalgovernment agency that owns thedisposal site following satisfdotory siteclosure whereas the reactor facilitywould remain licensed by a privateorganization, and thit there are only asmall number of disposal facilitiescompared to possibly over l00 reactorfacilities.

4. The ENTOMU Alternative.ENTOMB was defined In theSupplementary InIormatlon to theproposed rule as the alternative Inwhich radioactive contaminants areencased in a structurally long-livedmaterial, such as concrete: the

entombed structure is appropriatelymaintained and continued surveillanceIs carried out until the radioactivitydecays to a level permitting unrestrictedrelease of the property.

A number of commenters indicatedthat the rule should expressly prohibitthe use of ENTOMB as adecommissionlng alternative forreactors; Several reasons wereadvanced for this statement includingthe following: The ENTOMB alternativecould cause environmental damage dueto the presence of long-livedradionuclides which would beradioactive beyond the life of anyconcrete structure; the SupplementaryInformation to the proposed ruleindicates ENTOMB Is not viable yet therule does not explicitly prohibit It.ENTOMB Is inconsistent with thedefinition of decommissioning requiringrelease for unrestricted use; and somereactors are located In highly populousareas. In contrast several commentersstated that the ENTOMB alternativeshould be left as a possible option andthat in addition the 100-year period.discussed in the SupplementaryInformation as the time period in whichENTOMB should be completed was toorestrictive. Some commentear Indicatedthat ENTMB had certain advantagesIncluding reduced occupationalexposure and waste volumes whilesome noted that no options should beprecluded at this time due to thedeveloping nature of decommissioningtechnology.

It Is the Commission's belief that theENTOMB alternative fordecommissioning should not bespecifically precluded In the rulebecause there may be instances Inwhich it Would be an allowablealternative In protecting public healthand safety and common defense andsecurity. By not prohibiting ENTOMB.the rule Is more flexible in enabling NRCto deal with these Instances. Thoeseinstances might include smaller reactorfacilities, reactors which do not run tothe end of their lifetimes, or othersituations where long-lived Niotopes donot build up to significant levels orwhere there are other site specificfactors affecting the safedecommissioning of the facilty, as forexample, presence of other nuclearfacilities at the site for extendedperiods. In addition there Is potential forvariations on the ENTOMB optionwhere, for pxample, somedecoitamination has already beenperformed, thereby making theENTOMB option more viable. Analysisof the ENTOMB alternative in the PNLreports fRefs 2, 3) and In the GEIS (Ref.

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed..Reg. 24023 L988- -

24 . I ! I V ' 53,. N 123. ' M o n a J ue 27. 1 I e d R o

241029 lderai ikegsider t Vol. 1i;-No. li3 7 Monday, June 27, 29i88/ Rules and Regulations

20) indicates that It can be carrled outsafely and that It can have some benefitIn the reduction of occupationalexposure and waste requiring disposal.

As noted above, concerns wereexpressed by the commenters that theENTOMB option would causeenvironmental damage due to thepresence of long-lived radionuclideswhich wouild be radioactive beyond thelife of any concrete structure, that It IsInconsistent with the definition ofdecommissioning requiring unrestrictedrelease, and that some reactors arelocated In highly populous areas. Inaddition, the Supplementary Informationto the proposed rule Indicated, Ingeneral, that there may be difficultieswith the use of ENTOMB, In particularIn demonstrating that the radioactivityIn the entombed structure had decayedto levels permitting unrestricted releaseof the property in a period on the orderof 100 years. In response, the rulecontains requirements that a licenseemust submit an alternative fordecommissioning to the NRC forapproval and that consideration will begiyen to an alternative which providesor completion Of decommissioning

beyond 00 years only when necessary toprotect health and safety Thi providesthe Commission with both sufficientleverage and flexibility to ensure that ifthe ENTOIMB option is chosen by thelicensee It will only be used in situationswhere It Is reasonable and consistentwith the definition of decommissioningwhich requires that decommissioninglead to unrestricted release. Asindicated above, analysis of ENTOMBIndicates that it can be carried outsafely and with minimal environmentaleffect for the time periods presented In

-this Supplementary Information and Inthe guidance under preparation.However, based on the dimculties withENTOMB described In theSupplementary Information to theproposed rule and by the commenters,use of ENTOMB by a licensee would becarefully evaluated by NRC according tothe requirements of the rule before Itsuse Is permitted. Regulatory Guidescurrently in preparation will providemore guidance In this area.B. Planning for Decommissioning

Comments received on the subject ofdecommissioning planning coveredseveral areas. These Included thelicensing scheme for thedecommissioning process: the criteriafor conducting and evaluatingdecommissioning plans and activitiesand license termination, occupationalexposure, safeguards, and qualityassurance during decommissloning;

recordkeeping and facilitation; and theeffect of the rule on shutdown reactors.

1. Licensing scheme fordecommissioning. Several commentersfound the proposed rule vague In theareas of what type of license Is In effectduring reactor decommissioning, howPart 70 applies to reactors duringdecommissioning, when the licenseterminates, procedural criteria for thetermination process. and the restrictionsand requirements that apply to apossession-only license." One

commenter indicated that there might beloopholes which would be exploited bythe Industry resulting In adverse Impactsto the public and the environment andanother commen tar Indicated thatexplicit procedural criteria wouldremove a needless burden on applicantsand result In a more cost and timeeffective licensing process.

In response, it should be noted thatapplication for terrmination of licenseoccurs at the time of initiation ofdecommissioning which may be manyyears before actual termination oflicense Is granted, that decodimissioningis carried out under an amended licensein accordance with the terms of adecommissioning order, and that thelicense Is terminated only after theCommission Is satisfied thatdecommissioning has been properlycompleted. Normally, an amended Part50 license authorizing possession onlywill be Issued prior to thedecommissioning order to confirm thenonoperating status of the plant and toreduce some requirements which areimportant only for operation prior tofinalization of decommissioning plans.The authority to possess radioactivematerials under Parts 30, 40. and/or 70.as appropriate, continues to beincorporated In the modified Part 50license, as It Is during operation.Subsequent license amendments will beIssued as appropriate. The Commissionwill follow Its customary procedures, setout In 10 CFR Part 2of the NRC Rules ofPractice, In amending Part 50 licenses toimplement the decommissioningprocess. In the past, the period of safestorage or that following entombmenthas been covered by an amended"possession-only" Part 50 license whichdoes not authorize facility operation,with the term "order" used only in thecase of a dismantling order, due to themore active nature of this stage ofdecommissioning. Except for the use ofthe term "decommissioning order," therehas been no change from past practice.The term "decommissioning order' Isused in lieu of the tefm "dismantlingorder" because, according to theamendments, the overall approach to

decommissioning must now be approvedshortly after the end of operation ratherthan an amended "possession-only" Part50 license being issued without plans forultimate disposition.

As with any license, the authority tooperate or to carry on licensed activitiesceases at the expiration date unless thelicense is being renewed, However, thelicense and the responsibility to protecthealth and safely and promote thecommon defense and security continues-until the Commission terminates thelicense. Section 50.82(f) clearly Indicatesthe license Is terminated by adetermination of the Commission afterthe decommissioning has beenperformed and It has been adequatelydemonstrated that the facility and siteare suitable for release for unrestricteduse. Because decommissioning.Including any change from the originaloperating license, requires Commissionapproval, there are no "loopholes"which would allow adverse Impacts tothe public or environment.

For clarification, It Is noted that theterm "decommissioning plan" refers tothe plan submitted at the time thelicensee decides to terminate thelicense, while the term"decommissioning funding plan" refersto plan submitted early In facility lifewhich indicates the licensee's financialassurance provisions.

2. Criteria for decommissioningactivities and license termination. Manycommenters were concerned with thelack of speciflc requirements applicableto theprocess of decommissioning,particularly in the case of reactors. andsuggested that strong guidelines onrequirements for conducting ahdevaluating decommissioning plans andactivities and terminating licenses arenecessary to protect publicoccupational, and environmental safety.Some suggest that the rule establishcertain safety criteria and the ways Inwhich the utility will meet these criteria.A few commenters were specificallyconcerned with clarifying requirementsduring the "safe'storage" period, such asthose for security, Inspection, reporting,and monitoring. Many were not clear asto whether the suggested "guidance"should be In the rule or If RegulatoryGuides would be consideredappropriate. Two commenters indicatedthat without more specific criteria foracceptability of decommissioninq plans.the Commission would exercise littleauthority over licensee actions duringdecommissionlnrgand one commenterindicated that the licensees couldcondupt decommissioning with"virtually completd Independence." Twocommanters Indicated that the rule


Federal Register , Vol. 53; No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988,/ Ruls and Regulatjops . 24025_ ..

-nessumed" thatutilitierwoold follow-basit safety criteria.

in response, it sbould be nqted that.continuing authority to possess a reactorin a decommissioned status b govarned-by the provisions In 10 CFR Part 51covernilng operaling licenses..al

appropriate. As discussed earlier, It Isthe Intent of the rule to provide thentcessary guidelines to assure thatdocommissioning Is carried out In amanner which protects the public healthanid safety. To this end, the rule.contalins

*requirements that a decommissloningplan contain a description of thefollowing- The choice of the alternitivefor decommissioning and the activitiesInvolved; the controls and limits o:1 -psocedures and equipment to protect*o*ccupation al and public health and

. Safety; a descriptlon of the planned finalradiation survey; quility.apssurinc andBE feguards provisions, if.approprlate;.arid a plan for assuring the avalJabilityol funds for decommissioning..Bas ad onthis requirement the licenseesubriltsthe necessary Information to the NRC Inthe.decomrissioning plan. The NF.C'sevaluation of-the infotmalion conl inedIn this plan and the licensee'ssubsequent conduct of decomniss ionin'hactivities Is based on existingregulalidns applicable to reactors andother facilitles undergoingducomnmissioning. These regulationisInclude 10 CFR Pdrts 20, 50; 81, 70, 71.anid.73. ..

* Part 20 contalrs the basic stantiardsfor protection against radiation and Is.applicable to all licensees duringoperation as well as decommissioning,Including the storage period. Part.iOccntains requirements for limits on bothoccupational and public exposure,Including limits on radiation expot urearid concentrations of radioactivematerial in both yestricted and,unrestrncted areas. In addition to tiegeneral limilations on exposureccntalned in Part 20,10 CFR 20.1 (ciIndicates that radiation exposures andreleases of radioactive materials iteffluents to unrestricted areas, should beas low as reasonably achievable(ALARA). Part,20 also contains, arngngother things, requirements on radintlonmniltoring, personnel monitoring,precautionary procedures, and reporting.PErt )5, Appendix B contains broa Irequirements on quality assurance

.provisiopis yhich can be used,.asappropriate, to the extent commensurate

, with the safety functions lobepc rformed by facility structures,s, stems, and components diningducommissioning activities. Part 5) alsoccntains guidelfnes on radloactivewaste system design. Part GI contains

.. . .. ....-.. . . . '....

requ(rements on land disposal of 1radioactive waste including criteria for nclassification and characteristics of nwaste accepiable fo, disposal.Part 71contains requirements for the packagingand Iransporltion cf radioactivematerial. Parts 70 and 73 containreiuirements for physical protection ofplants and materials. Although all of fthese parts do not specifcally mentiondecommissioning activities, the criteriaof these parts would apply, asappropriate, to decommissioning. Inaddition, regulatory guides, many of .

.which already exist apnd some of. which,are under consideration cqn provideadditional guidance tot planning apdconducting decommissloning inaecordance with the appplicble :regulations. For example, Regulatory *Guide 8.8 provides juidanceon ensuring ithiat occupational exposures are ALARA 1and Regulatory Gulde 1.143 provides .guidance on radioactive waste Itreitalent systems. Aldso as noted below IIn Sections B.4 and 13;5, guidance-is * , .

being considered on safeguards ahd on .quality assurance provislons durlng o idecomnrissloailni and on procedures tobe conildered for facilitatingiecdnirhiiiiloning by reducing.radlalion

dQse bqsgd on N1fR9G/CR-3587zRef25). - , 1

'The primary means of protecting thehealth and safety of the.public andworkers during decbrnmlsslonlng Is..through Implementation of the.d6commislioning plan; Theodecommissioning plan would containthq licensee's mean-o for complying withparts of the regulations discussed abovewhich are applicabls to non-operatingfacilities.

All amendments to the operatinglicense which the licensee holds at thetimni the decommissioning plan Issubniittedare subjest to Commissionapproval. Amendmonts to the licenseare needed because many of theprescriptive requirements of anoperating license are for the purpose ofassuring safe operallon and are nolonger necessary duringdecommissioning. The decommissioningplan and the assocointed approvalprocess provide an adequate legalframework for the ri3gulation of facilitiesundergoing decommissioning. Therefore,the licensee would not haveIndependence In conductingdecommissioning. The Commission doesnot merely assume Ihe utilities willfollow basic safety criteria Thelicensing offices will reviewdecommissioning plans based on theapplicable criteria and guidance and theinspection and enforcement staff willmonitor the carryinlj out of the plans.

This approach should provide enoughlexib llty to accomtn'odate the variednatureof activities which are possible.

The proposed rule has been modifiedo provide some additional detail on thescope of decommissioning plans In theInal rule.'A proposed regulatory guideon contents of decommissioning plans'or materials facilities has been)ublfshqd; a similar Regulatory Guide,or-reactors Is being developed to.provide 'guidance on the InformationNhich should be submitted to conform:o the rule. In addition. Regulatory....Gulde 1.88 provides guidance onconducting decommissioning activities,..ncluding storage periods, In a manner tomeet applicable requirements. ThisRegulatory. Guide Is currently beingrevised to be fully consistent with' theregulallons:Regilatory Guldes-havebeen used successfully to provideunitorm applicalion of requirements.while affording Commission staff.flexibility to. consider unique factors Inany situation. In addition, the staffwould use stanfdard review plans (SRPs)which contain review procedures andthe acceptsancecritera used. In Tevaluating licensee applications,including decommissioning plans. These.SRPs would be'avallible and containthe bases for-the acceptance.criteria.* One cotnmenter noted that It was-unclear what activities should not bestarted prior to approval ofdqcomnmissloning plans; Other."commsnters.equested ihat thereulations be clarified In order to.delineateathose'activitlerrelated todecommIssloning that could proceedwithout approval of the.decommissioning plan If those activitiesare allowed by the operating license and.5 50.59.

In response It should be noted that1 50.59 permits a holder of an operatinglicense to carry out certain activitieswithout prior Commission'approvalunless these activities involve a changern the technical specifications or anunrevIewed safety question. However,when there is a change In the technicalspecifications or an unreviewed safetyquestion, 1 50.59 requires the hWlder ofan operating license to submitp anapplication for amendpient to the'llcense pursuant to 1 50.90, Section60.59(a)(2) contains criteria as to what isdeemed to be an unreviewed safetyibsup. The amendments contalned In thisrulemaking do not alter a licensee'scapability to conduct activities underI 50.59. Although the Commission mustapprove the decommissioning-alternative and major structural changesto radioactive components of the facilityor other major changes, the licensee

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24025 1 988.. : ::.

I 24020o i .FA49a) 19,P9#sN.JI You 43iwIipQ. t934M2 iMpay1*.Je,27. IM8: t Rules' and Regulations

may proceed with some activities suchas decontamination, minor componentdisassembly, and shipment and storageof spent fuel if these activities arepermitted by the operating license and/or 50.569. These matters will be furtherdiscussed in a revision to RegulatoryGuide 2.88 under consideration.

3. OccupatIonal exposure duringdecommissioning. Many comnaentereemphasized the Importance of workerprotection. Many of these suggestedmore specilic criteria to minimizeworker exposure. A number wereconcerned that the rule did not,specificaily address radiationmonitoring. One felt that reporting of allphases to NRC should be required. Onefelt that strict enforcement of safetystandards should be required, and alsoIndicated that experience at TM1 andShippingport would indicate that totaloccupational exposures are apt to besubstantially higher than estimated.Another believed that exposures duringdecommissioning will be substantiallyhigher than from operations. Onecommnenter suggested specific.requirements such as training of.workers prior to work In highlyradloacUve areas.

In response, minimizing workerexposure during decommissioning Is oneof the main goals of this rulemaking andof the guidance being developed Inconnection with this rulemaking.Detailed plans for decommissioning arethe primary means of minimizing workerexposure. Procedures for carrying outdecommissioning will be evaluated byNRC staff for adequacy of occupationalexposure control; plans for appropriatetraining are an area of review. Basicradiation protection, monitoring, andreporting requirements need not bedeveloped specifically fordecommlsuionling because generallyapplicable criteria are already containedin 20 CYR Part 20. The radiation levels towhich workers will be exposed will besimilar to levels of major maintenanceactivities conducted during operations.If total exposures prove to be higherthan estimated, this could be factoredInto decisions concerning alternativesand approvches In the future. Alsocontributing to the miilmlzation of.worker exposure are the recordkeepingrequirements of this rule. Other aspectsof facilitation of decommissioning willbe considered in the review of licenseapplications.

4. Safeguards duringdecominiisaloning. A commenter pointedout that the applicability of safeguardsrequirements to decommissioning Isunclear. In response, as noted above InSection B2, the existing regulations on

safeguards for nuclear facilities are.considered to contain criteria applicableto the decommissioning process.Therefore It is not considered necessaryto amend those regulations. However,the Commission has modified theproposed rule to indicate thatsafeguards provisions duringdecommissioning are to be described, at-appropriate, In the decommissioningplan. In addition, appropriate guidancedocuments will be Issued Identifyingwhich of the current operatingrequirements on safeguards are to applyduring decommissioning

5. Quality assurance duringdecommissioning. Many cormnentarswere concerned that the proposedregulation did not Include mention ofquality assurance and/or quality.controlfor decommissioning Some of these.indicated that QA/QC requirementsneed to be clearly specified. A fewcomments indicated the need for aseparate or Independent QA(QC staff.Two commeriteri suggested somespecific procedures which should besubJect to Q uA and two others refer toproblems with decontaminationactivities at Saxton because of lackofQA.

The Commission agrees that qualityassurance Is Important fordecommissioning. The intent to IncludeQA In decommissioning plans was'mentioned In the statement ofconsiderations of the proposed rule, butthe scope of plans in the regulation Itselfwas very general. The final ruleindicates that QA provisions duringdecommissioning are to be described, asappropriate, In the'decommissioningplan A large part of the QA program foroperating reactors pertains to equipmentand procedures necessary for the safeoperation of the plant the equipmentand procedures requiring qlAprocedures during decommissioning Ismuch more limited. It Is not considerednecessary to detail these requirementsin the regulations because of the limitednature of the QA requirements. As notedAbove in Section B.2. Information in thedecommissioning plan would describeQA provisions as they comply with 20CFR Part $0, Appendix B to the extentcommensurate with the safety functionsto be performed by facility structures,systems and components duringdecommissioning activities. Guidance Isbeing considered to assist In thedelopment and review of the qualityassurance provisions ofdecommissioning plans.

6. Recordkeeping and facilitation.Commenter opinions concerning therecordkeeping requirements proposed:was mixed. Several thought It was

Important enough to include speciflcsupport for the requirements asproposed Indicating-why such recordswere Important. Other commentersindicated that existing recordkeepingrequirements are sufficient. Onecommenter suggested that records mightbe limited to those events resulting Inthe spread of contamination outside of-radlologically.controlled areas Identified'In the updated F8AR

The Commission Is retainingrecordkeeping requirements fordecommissioning Experience hasshown that incomplete knowledge of.facility desigi and history can result insignificant difficalties and greatlyunderestimated costs at the time ofdecommissioning. Although many Of therecords, particularly In the case ofreactors, would be kept for otherpurpbses, It is expected that anImprovement In assurance ofavailability of the records will resultfrom the amendments. The amendmentshave been written to minimize theadditional effort required, that is,requiring only centralized reference topertinent records'and their locationrather than duplication of the recordsand, ifdrawings are referenced, not,requiring that each relevant documentbe In dexedt in divi d ually.

Some commenti Were submittedconcerning facililtatioi ofdecommissioning: The commenterefavored consideration of facilitationexcept for one who indicated thatadditional plant design requirementsand operating procedures to facltatedecommissioning are not necessary.One commenter discussed how designfacilitation and improvements In thetechnology of decommissioning (such asrobots and remote devices) can reducethe costs, time, and exposures ofdecommissioning. Other commentersrecommended that specific requirementsfor facilitation of decommissioning Indesign and operating procedures beIncluded In the regulations.

In prepqring the proposed rule, theCommission did not conclude thatadditional plant deslgn requirementsand operating procedures to facilitatedecommissioning are unnecessary butrather that other than recordkeeping, nospecific design feature nor operatingprocedure need be reouired specilicallyfor all licensees at this time. As noted inthe Supplementary Information to theproposed rule, although no specificrequirements are being imposed at thistime, the effects of facilitation on designof facilities and operational procedurescan be considered under general criteriacontained in existing regulations In 10CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 To


. Federal Register f Vol, 53, No. 123:/ Monday, Juhe:V, .1W8'- Ruleiand Regulsdn2 . 24027 '

--------- tha extent that design features or decommissioning Inciuded questions and the waseei will be dispied. of in -operational-techniques are of known regarding costs of decommissioning. use Federal Repository. Other estimates atvalue In facilitating decommission'ng, or certification-of a speclfied amount .'Saxton and Humboldl Bay (which theth s Commission staff may conside, and funding plans for reactors,. commenter Indicated as being $800these factors In reviewing applications acceptable funding rmethods, submittal million In 2015 dollars) Indicate PNLfo;r construction permits or operatl ig of funding plans, specifIc comments on estimates are too low,licenses under the more.general crileria funding for material licensees, funding (d) Estimates of costs of othercontained In the regulations. The for Federal licensees, arid general activities such as reactor construction,CommissIon has done some prelini lary questions boncerninlr need for funding TMI-2 cleanup, and Saxtonstudies to Identify possible beneficial requirements and re lationship of the rule decommissioning have been greatlyfe 3tures and techniques.(NUREG/CR- to the functions of olher regulatory underestimated Cost of35B7, Reference 25). agencies, decommissioning will likely escalate

7. Shutdown reactors. A number of 1. Cost of decomm issioning. A number much higher than estimated today.co mmenters were concerned aboutIthe of commenters questioned the Battelle (e) The cost of decommissioning ae ri emption of reactors pprinanenoid 1 shut Pacific Northwest LAtboratory JPNL) reactor will likely equal the cost ofdown prior to issuance of the rule from estimates of the cost: of coftstkuction of the plant.th i requirement to submit decommissioning as discussed In the The following Is a discussidn of thede commissioning plans;8Some thought. Supplementary Infoimation to the response to these conicerns.th at this would mean a lowver leve of proposed rule; A vadiety of alternative NRC. as part of Its efforts onprotection for the public living near such estimates and reasons for questioning rulemaking for decommissIoning,a plant. One comnuenter suggested that the estimates were loven. A iummary of contracted with Battelle Pacificthose licensees be required to review these are as follows: Northwest Labs (PNL) to develop antheir plans within a set time after the (a) Commentere indicated that other analysis of estimated costs ofeffective date of the rule and subulrt any estimates have been made which make decommissioning various nuclearrevisions necessary to make their plans the PNL studies appear to be too low, facilities, Including PWRs and BWRs, onconsistent with the new regulations and Commenters from the nuclear industry a generic basis, based on an engineeringtwo commenters suggested an Indicated costs are more likely in the evaluation of activities involved inexempilon procedure In the regulations range of $12 to $713 million. Other decommissioning. As indicated above,W Duei be better than a blanket commenters cited etatimates which range certain of the commenters disputed the

in response comment It should from SW0 million to as high as $3 billion, accuracy of the PNL studies to varying'bI noted that reactors which are The variety of estimates are cited by degrees.permanently shut down prior to the some commenters as being indicative of The PNL'reports on decommissioningeffrective date of this rule, have hadI their the uncertainty of edsimates. One a reference P.WR and reference BWRstatutsreviewedbyapplyingfora thel commenter indicated that the estimates are detailed engineering studies of theposseiulon-only license (a fewh had In the PNL tudies vrere high conceptual decommtissioning of a largeoetained a materials lcense only)( . (b) The data base of the PNL reports Is PWR (the 1175 MWe Trojan Nuclear

These plants are being adequatel) limited because the reports are based on Plant Is used as the reference plant) andcontrolled under their modified license small research reac'tors and on the Elk *. a large BWR (the 1150 MWe WNP-2and license conditions to protect the River reactor. In particular, Elk River plant Is used as reference). The PNLhealth and safety of the public while in and Saxton operated at low power loads reports consider (1) The detailed plantthis decommissioning mode. Any lurther and for only a very short time, not long design and layout of the reference plant;delay In completion of decommissloni . enough for long-lived radionuclides to (2) estimated conditions in the plant atwould have-to be considered formaliy 1 build up. Thus, necessary experience to the time of shutdown Uust prior toarl extenilon Is requested beyond the make accurate cost estimates does not debommissloning) including estimates ofe) plration of the possession-only exist and commenters quote the PNL radionuclide Inventory and radiationliMense. Detailed plans for ultimat . reports as stating that "extrapolatlons dose lates; (3) techniques for.dismantlement of reactor, currently in from these experiences to large decontamination and dismantling whichis fe storage would be deferred under commercial reactoru are considered to are current and proven; and (4) radlationthe provisions of this rule. Requiring a be generally unreasonable. Moreover protection requirements for workers anddccommissloning plan for these re actors commenters stated that the PNL studies the public. Based on theseat this time, or an application for are outdated. Some commenters point considerations, the PNL reports presente)xemption, would Involve out that certain necessary data for detailed work plans and time schedulesadministrative efforts on the part ,f -estimating costs does not exist. These to accomplish decommissioning,these licensees with ho significant . data Includetinformation on concrete including those for planning andinipact on health and safety. Fundin. contamination, activated vessel prpparation, decontamination, andand recordkeeping requirements th I components and biological shield and component disassembly and transport.amendments apply to these-reactbrse soll.contamidation 'ind uncertain status In making cost estimates of.si:nce they possess an "operating of requiremenks regardiin occupalional decommissloning, the PNL reportslicense.'! albeit modified. Details dose waste disposal and revisiual Includexwork scheduling estimates,ccnceming financial assurance,. radioactivity. staffing requirements, specialtypuimarily the time period for .(c) Shippingport, P 65MWe reactor, . contractors, essential systems,.accumuliting funds not set aside during. has beereestimated totost $9R millonlto .radioactive materials disposal, supplies,ol)erallon, would be decided on i case- decommission. Largor reactors would .. etc.by-case basis. , likely costsignificantly more than this. The PNL reactor decommissioning

F perhaps more than three times as much. studies were performed during theCIn addithon, hippilrport.cost.estimates. period 197F9 and PNL has since.

Comments received-on the Issun of ,.are probably lower than typical because prepared updates of the original PWRansuring the availability of funds lor the reactor vessel vwill be removed Intact.,.. and DWR studies (N=REG/CR-03o



(Ref. 2) and NUREG/CR-0872 (Ref. 3),respectively) In which the earlierestimates were adjusted for Inflationdue to Increases In labor costs, wastedisposal charges, and other general costIncreases since the original studies. Inaddition to inflation, several aspects notconsidered In the original studies wereexamined: the use of a generaldecommissioning contractor In place ofthe utility acting as Its own contractor;the use of an external engineering firmto develop the detailed plans andprocedures for accomp lshingdecommissloning and the addition ofsufficient staff to assure that radiationdoses to decommissioning workers donot exceed 5 rem per year.

Based on the above factors andadjustments, PNL estimates of powerreactor decommissioning In January1988 dollars are In the range of $105-$135 million. A breakdown of thesecosts Is contained In the Final GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement onDecommissioning Nuclear Facilltles(Ref. 20). The PNL costs do not Includethe cost of demolition and removal ofnoncontaminated structures, storageand shipment of spent fuel, orrestoration of the site.

Although It may be difficult to makesimple comparisons between differentcost estimetes for different plant.because of .ite-speciflc considerations,it can be said that the PNL estimatesrepresent a reasonable approximation ofthe range of decommissioning costs, Inparticular because they use engineeringassumptions and are based ondecommnisioning experience. Otherestimates made independently from PNLand made using engineeringassumptions are in the same generalcost range as PNL Estimates In therange of $80O million to $3 billion appearto be unreasonably high. The $8O0million figure is for decommissioningHumboldt-Bay and is In year 2015dollars and hence Includes the assumedeffects of price escalation between 1984and Z205 which could be substanUal. Noipecific bases or data are presented bythe commenter to justify the $3 billionfigure. It may be based on comparisonsof construction and decommissioningcosts. However, this Is not necessarily avalid comparison as discussed below.

Explanation of differences betweenthe PNL cost estimate range and thatcited by the nuclear Industry of $128 to$178 million rests partly with site-specific differences and partly withdiffering assumptions regarding labornecessary to complete certaindecommissioning tasks and differingassumptions regarding waste disposalvolumes and charges. These different

assumptions come about based partiallyon the uncertainty Inherent in makingthesecost estimates at this time. Furtheranalysis In revisions to the estimates toaccount for recent technical Informationobtained since the original PNL studieswere prepared may well reduce thedifferences In the assumptions andestimates. For example, the NRC hairesearch programs underway to obtaindata from the decommissioning of theShippingport reactor. The ruleamendments provide for thesedifferences by allowing the use of site-specific cost estimates In financialassurance provisions.

The commenters In (b) abovequestioned the PNL data base because itused small reactors as a basis. Asdiscussed below, the primary use ofInformation from earlierdecommissionings of small reactors likeElk River was to gain a perspective onthe types of operations necessary andthe types of tooling appropriate toaccomplish dismantlement.

The fact that the activation levelsexperienced in Elk River were lower'than those anticipated in a reactor after.a full lifetime of operation has littleeffect on the PNL analyses, becausecomponents that are highly activatedare generally disassembled under water.With water shielding, still higheractivation levels will not Influence theapproach and methods of disassemblyand packaging In any significant way.

With respect to the lack of data oncontamination and activation levelsthroughout the plants at the end of life,the activation levels were calculatedusing well-proven methods and thecontamination levels were based ondatar from actual operating plants after 3to 6 years of operation. These values arenot unreasonable estimates of end-of-life conditions because current operatingpractice Is to perform system andsurface decontaminations periodicallyas required to keep occupationalradiation doses to operations personnelwithin reasonable bounds.

The quotation from the PNL report tothe effect that "extrapolations of theseexperiences to large commercialreactors are considered to beunreasonable" needs to consider theremainder of the discussion contained Inthe PNL report for the proper context.The statement In thb PNL report was notIntended to Imply that reasonableanalyses could not be made for the largereactors. The statement was Intendedinstead to discourage persons fromperforming linear extrapolations of theElk River decommissioning costs to alarge power reactor by using the ratio oftheir power levels. In fact, the PNL

studies go on to state in Section 4.3 ofNUREG/CR-072 that 'the primaryvalue of past decommissioningexperience Is In identification of themethods and technologies ofdecommissioning," In Section 4.3.3,NUREG/CR-072 describes some of thelessons learned from pastdecommissionings, including the factthat "Past decommissionings havedemonstrated some of the aspects of thepracticality and acceptability of thevarious decommissioning approaches.The necessary technology not onlyexists, but has been safely andsuccessfully applied numerous times toa wide variety of nuclear Installations."As can be seen In Appendix G ofNUREG/CR-072, Inormation on'techniques and methods from earlferdecommlssionings, gathered fromvarious sources Is used In consideringwhich techniques are applicable tolarger facilities. Some examples aredecontamination, physical cleaning.removal of structural material, andequipment disassembly. Thus, asdiscussed In NlJUREG/CR-W7Z. direct

-extrapolation or comparison ofdecommissioning the small facilities Isnot used by PNL in evaluating costs ofdecommissioning for the larger referencefacilities, but rather the usefulness of theearlier decommissionlngs Is In their'demonstration of available andsuccessful decommissioningmethodsand.techniques to accomplish specifictasks.

PNL utilizes this Information, whereapplicable to large reactors, and alsoconsiders the design and plant layout ofthe large reactors, and the estimatedconditions in the reactor at the time ofshutdown including estimates ofradionuclide inventory and radiationdose rates, as well as decontamination-techniques and radiation protectionmeasures more appropriate for largereactors. Based on these considerations,the PNL studies developed detailedwork plans and time schedules toaccomplish decoinmissloning which aredescribed In more detail In Sections 4.2and 9 and Appendices F and C ofNUREG/CR-MSD and Sections 3 and 9.and Appendices G, H, and I of NUREG/CR-WZ.

The commenters in (c) questioned thePNL estimates due to the costs of theShipping decommissioning. In response,first, It should be hoted that theShIppingport reactor has all of thecomponents of a large commercialreactor and, In addition, the ratio of thephysical size of component. alShippintport compared to the physicalsize of components at a largecommercial reactor Is much larger than

Heinonline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24028 1988

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123./ Morldqy, June 27, 1988 /I Rulqs. apng Regulations �4029.

the ratio of power levels. Thus, the kinds5ind numbers of operations requited tosiccomplIsh dismantlement are verysimilar. The cost of assembling aidpaying a crew for the decommiss ioningis high and makes up a large fraction ofthe cost of decommissioning. Even forsmaller facilities, a crew must still beEissembled anti must perform a numbercif tasks similar to those In large ieactorssuch as decontamination of piping loops,decontamination of concrete surfaces,vessel and pipe cutting, etc. The costs ofstaff labor forthese activities issignificant In each case.

Second, the specific situations at£Shippingport must be considered InParticulars the Shippingportdismantlement Is being conducte i as alearning exercise and an information/technology transfer opportunity I Dr thenuclear Industry. More time and efforta re being devoted to planning,executing. and documenting each taskthan would otherwise be necessi ryduring a commercial reactordecommissioning project. Thus, thec:osts should be greater than expectedfor a plant of that size. In addition, theShippingport cost estimate is escslatedto real dollars spent during the a':tivedecommissioning period up to 1930which Is a reasonable estimationmethod because DOE needs to projectsictual year dollar costs for budgitPurposes. However. this Is differant fromthe method used In the PNL estimateswhich was to use constant 1984 dollarsin the proposed rule. To make a validc omparison, both estimates would haveto be in the same year dollars. Inflationcver this period may be an Importantfactor. Another factor in the differenceIn cost Is that the Shippingport estimatesInclude cost of demolition of certainfacility structures and site restoration,vhich are not included In the PNL

estimates. In addition to these factors,I)OE Indicated the existence of certainunique Items In the ShIppingportclecommlsslonhng include: The testing ofCertain decommissioning methods todetermine If they fit particularapplicalions; efforts Involved to sharetechnology with uillites; and effortsInvolved In considering the presence ofthe nearby operating Beaver ValleyX lants during decommissioning.

The commenters In (d) questioned thec ost estimates due to earlierunderestimates of construction costs atnuclear plants and cleanup costs atTMI-Z. In response, while there Is nodoubt that decommissioning cos';s willcontinue to escalate In step with general1)rice increases, it does not follow thatbecause reactor construction cot tsexceeded original estimates,

-decommissioning cost estimates willalso be greatly exceeded. Cost overrunsIn the construction of nuclear plantsreflected the regulatory requirementsnecessary to licens3 a reactor forconstruction and operation, the cost ofInterest to borrow money duringprotracted delays, and other site-specific problems rather than a basicInability to project the technologicalcosts. Decommissioning cost estimatesdo not Include a number of the factorsInvolved in obtaining an operatinglicense and should not necessarily besubject to such Increases. The cleanupat TMI-2 Is a first-of-a-kind endeavorwith potential for increased costs. TheInitial cost estimates were based onvery limited knowledge of the actualconditions to be overcome, and inaddition, there were delays In theprogram caused by technical andregulatory problems.

The cost estimate for cleanup al TMI-2 has not Increased appreciably since1981 due in part to a betterunderstanding of the work scope. Thecleanup following tin accident is notcomparable to a normaldecommissioning in terms of eithertechnology or cost and the conditionsfor a reactor decommissioning can bemuch more sharply defined than couldthe conditions for Mi-2 cleanup. Also,the activities needed to decommissionare not first-of-a kInd, but reflect directapplications of developed techniquesand equipment. Thus, cost Increases ofthe magnitude exparienced by the TMI-2 cleanup effort are unlikely to occur fora normal decommissioning effort.

The commenters In (a) indicated thatthe cost of decommissioning wouldlikely equal the co it of construction ofthe plant. i.e, with costs of constructionrunning at $3 billion, the cost ofdecommissioning would be $3 billion.First, there have been no detailedanalyses presented to indicate that

- decommissioning costs will equalconstruction costs and, In fact, there isnot a specifically defined or fixedrelationship between these two costs.The PNL studies on decommissioning(NUREG/CR-M72 and NUREG/CR-0130) have not identified a specificrelationship between construction costsand decommissioning costs. As can beseen In Section 10 of i EG/CR-0072,decommissioning costs depend on'various specific factors such as costs of'staff labor to accomplishdecommissioning tasks, costs ofdisposal of waste, special tools andequipment miscellaneous supplies, etc.Cost of construction Includes severalItems which have little or no effect ondecommissioning costs such as

licensing, extensive quality assuranceprocedures during construction, sitepreparations, installation and testing ofInstrumentation, control and electricalsystems, the cost of Interest on themoney used during construction, etc.This discussion does not attempt todefine or provide costs of these andother items, but to point out the differingnature of many of the construction costsversus decommissioning cost items, andwhy there was no identification of adefined relationship between them Inthe Battlp-PNL reports.

Secondly, In any comparison of costsIt Is necessary to place the costs In thesame year's dollars in order to have ameaningful basis for comparison.Certainly In about 30-40 years when thereactors are decommissioned, Inflationmay well drive the decommissioningcosts towards the current cost ofconstruction. However, thedecommissioning rule amendments,which will require maintenance of fundsby methods which keep pace withinflation and periodic adjustment offunds to account for effects of inflation.will p'ovide assurance that funds areavailable to pay for decommissioningwhen needed.

2. Use of certification of a specifiedamount and funding plans for reactors.The proposed rule contained provisionsthat a utility applicant or licensee maysubmit a certification that financialassurance for decommissioning will beprovided In a prescribed amountstipulated In the regulations as $100million (in 1984 dollars). The proposedrule also indicated that this value is tobe adjusted annually using an Inflationrate twice that Indicated by the changeIn the Consumer Price Index. Thefollowing were comments received onthis issue:

(a) A hnumber of commenters objectedto the use of certifiation for thefollowing general reasons:

(1) The use of site specific estimates Ispreferable to a prescribed amountbecause they will be more realistic andaccurate and able to account for site-specific factors.

(2) Commenters generally felt thatbecause of the wide range of sitespecific cost estimates, any one valuewould not be accurate and not be-representative of most plants andtherefore the number of licensees usingcertification would be low. Mostcommenters argued that $100 millionwas too low while a few argued that Itwas too high.

(3) The use of a prescribed amountwill not decrease utility efforts becausethey will still have to prepare sitespecific cost studies for the rate

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24029 1988 -

24030 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 19885/ Rules and Regulations

regulators regardless of the certification and the Inflation factor should beprocedure. Commenters noted that the modified using other escalators, foruse of the $100 million figure or other example, Handy-Whitman Indexes forsimilar prescribed amount will be labor and materials and separate dataviewed by state and Federal rate sources for waste disposal.regulators as a limiting value, thus (c) With regard to funding plans,placing a burden on utilities to Justify to several commenters Indicated that therethe rate regulators an alternative needed to be more specific orfunding level even If site specific studies quantitative description of NRC'sshow the prescribed amount to be criteria f6r approval of cost estimates ininappropate for that plant. 8ome power reactor funding plans and thatcommenterN noted that this situation lack of criteria could result in confusion.had already occurred In specific In responding to these comments itsituations. should be noted that, as discussed in the

(4) The use of a specific prescribed Supplementary Information to theamount as stated In the certification was proposed rule, the Intent of the use ofseen by some commenters as setting a certification Is to minimize therevenue requirement which Is a function administrative effort of licensees andfor state and Federal rate regulators. the Commission while still providing

(5) The inflation factor contained In reasonable assurance that funds will bethe proposed rule was considered to be available to carry out decommissioninginaccurate because there was no basis in a manner which protects publicto expect the decommissioning cost to health and safety. The certificationIncrease at twice the CPI In the future, amount was base on the significant dataand the factor could be subject to base on decommissioning developmentmisuse as holted above In (c). as part of the policy evaluation. The

(b) Some commenters. Indicated that If Intent expressed In the proposed iulecertification Is retained that It should be remains valid, however, It appears fromrevised and clarified. The following the comments that the Intent andsuggestions were made as to what proposed use of certification has been

should be done if certification Is kept: misunderstood. Thus, the retention of(1) The certification requirement certification requires clariflcation and

should be clarified to Indicate that it Is adjustment for It to be useful in thenot Intended to and does not represent manner it was intended. These pointsthe actual cost of decommissioning, that are discussed in the followingIt Is not fixed but Is for reference paragraphs.purposes only, that It Is only Intended to Fir, It io still expected that a properinsure minimum financial responsibility certification method would provide clearand that It is niot intended to bind criteria anid would minimize the amountregulatory ratemaking bodies to that of administrative effort that the NRCfigma xitheras a minimum o maximum. and Ucensees must expend In

(2) The amount should be Increased to establlshing reasonable financialthe $120 to $7t7 million range so that It assurance for decommissioning. TheIs sufficiently high to Include reallistic certificatlon Is also Intended to minimiiedecomrqi stoning costs. NRC Involvement In the rate regulatory

,(3) Indicate that, despite the process, which is an area outside ofallowance of certification, use of a site NRC Juruldiction. The fact that sitespecific study is preferable and should specitlc cost estimates may still have tobe used If available. Only allow use of be prepared for rate regulators Is out-certification In certain cases when it can side the scope of this rulemaking.be shown that costs are less than $100 Second, the comments that a sitemillion. specific cost estimate is preferable as

(4) There should be consideration noted In (a)(1) above, that the prescribedgiven to include means to adjust the* amount In the certification Is notcertification numbers to account for. representative of mbst plants as notedinsuch thigs as plant size, design, other (a)(2) above, and that the use of thesite specific factors, BWR vs PWR, pre- prescribed amount will be viewed as aor post-TlM units, decommissioning limiting upper value by rate regulatorsalternative, two-unit site-savings, etc. as noted In (a)(3) above, indicates the

(5) Clarification should be Included as certification method In the proposed ruleto what the $100 million includes, his been misunderstood. The proposednamely whether It covets both . rule stated that a utility could submit a.radioactive and nonradloactive certification that flnaniolal assurance forstructures, whether it Includes decommissioning will be provided In ancontingencies, whether It Is per unit. a mount pt least equal to $100,000,000

(6) The use of the Inflation factor (Enphasis added). Accordingly, theshould be clarified, In particular that It proposed rule did not Intend to preventIs not intended to reflect the actual rate site specific cost estimates from beingof increase ofdecommissloning costs, done fnd amounts greater than the.

prescribed amount being estimated andyused for financial assurance planning aslong as the estimate exceeded theprescribed amount. Under the provisionsof the proposed rule, licensees couldprepare a site specific cost estimate andIf it exceeded the prescribed amount,which would be acting as a thresholdreview level, the estimate would not bea matter for NRC consideration. Theamount listed as the prescribed amountdoes not represent the actual cost ofdecommissioning for specific reactorsbut rather is a reference levelestablished to assure that licenseesdemonstrate adequate financialresponsibility that the bulk of the fundsnecessary for a safe decommissioningare being considered and planned forearly in facility life, thus providingadequate assurance at that time that thefacility would not become a risk topublic health and safety when It isdecommissioned. It Is not Intended tobind ratemaking bodies to that specificfigure. The text of the final rule statesthat, if a site specific cost evaluation Isprepared, It can form the basis for thecertification and the licensee mayindicate that provisions are being madefor an amount greater than theprescribed amount.

Use of the certification approach Is afirst step in providing reasonableassurance of funds for decommissloningfrom the Cominission's perspective. Thesecond step Is that the amendmentsrequire the licensee, five years prior tothe.expected end of operations, tosubminta cost estimate fordeconmlissloning based on an up-to-date assessment of the actionsnecessary for'decommissloning andplans for adjusting levels of fundsassured for decommissloning. As notedIn the Supplementary Information to theproposed rule, this estimate would bebased on a then current assessment ofmajor factors that could affectdecommissioning costs and wouldInclude relevant, up-to-date Information.These factors could Include site specificfactors as well as then current*Information on such Issues as disposalof waste, residual radioactivity criteria,etc., and would present a realisticappraisal of the decommissioning of thespecific reactor, taking Into accountactual factors and details specific to thereactor and the time'period.

Combination of these steps, firstestablishing a general level of adequatefinancial responsibility fordecommissioning early In life, followedby periodic adjustment, and thenevaluation of specific provislons close tothe time of decommissioning, willprovide reasonable assurance that the

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24030 1988 .

' ; e* e b X

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, '1988 / Rules and Regulations 24031

C ommission's objective Is met, ne melythat at the time of permanent end ofoperations sufficient funds are availableto decommission the facility In a mannerwhich protects public health and safety.More detailed consideration by NRCearly in life beyond the certification isnot considered necessary becauso of thesteps discussed above. In iddition,because public utility commissior i areto set a utilits rates buch that alreasonable costs of serving the publicnmay be recovered and because NRCr3quirements concerning termination ofa license are part of the reasonable costof having operated a reactor, It Isreasonable to assume that added costsbeyond those in the prescribed amountcould be obtained If the latter were toolow as suggested by the commenlers.

Based on the above discussion, thelovel of review contained in thisdecommissioning rule providesreasonable assurance for funding, Inr3sponse to those commentes who wereconcerned that the criteria forevaluation of power reactor fundingplans were not sufficiently specif c orquantitative, the certification proiressprovides clear requiremnents and willachieve the objective or reasonalleassurance of funding while minimizingassociated administrative effort.T herefore, the amendments do nc tcontain requirements for a cost estimateearly In reactor life. The more detailedr3view 5 years prior to end of life isconsistent with the requirements fornon-reactor facilities who are requiredto submit updated plans at the tine oflicense renewal (which occurs every fiveyears).

As discussed above, the Intent of theamendments Is thit there be reasonableassurance of funds for decoinmisilioning.Other Issues normally outside NF;C'sjurisdiction such as rate of collec lionand whether a fundinginethod 1sequitable should be considered byrutilities and their ratemaking bodies. Forexample, to be more equitable toretepayers, the utilltlei and rateniakingbodies may.want to consider whetheramounts should be collected basud on asite specific cost estimate whichexceeds the prescribed amount rutherthan the stepwise approach discL ssedabove. The final rule contains textracognizing that funding fordeco'mmissioning of electric uIlitles Is.also subject to the regulation of agencieshaving jurisdiction over rates, an i thattVie NRC requirements are in addition to,and not substitution for, otherrdquirements, and are not Intendad to beused, by themselves, by other agionclest establish rates. Hence, NRC will nottecome involved In the rate regu ation

. . . . . .

process ad It relates todecommissioning.

Basedon these considerations, thecertification requirement has beenretained. However, It has been modifiedin several ways to Incorporate publiccomments to clarify its purpose and useas follows:

(1) As noted above, the text of the rulehas been revised to Indicate clearly thata licensee may use a site specificdecommissioning cost estimate toindicate that provieIons are being madefor an amount greatler than theprescribed amount atid to delineate thecorrect usage of the certification.

(2) As indicated In I 50.75(c), theamount has been increased. The revisedamount Is based on recent evaluationsdone for NRC by itM contractor BattellePacific Northwest laboratory. Asdiscussed In Sectlon C.1, these estimatesare considered to represent a reasonableengineering estima[e of the range ofdecommissloning costs. In preparationof the final rule, the original PNLestimates were reevaluated andcompared with other estimates andupdated estimates were developedbased on recent inlormation.

(3) In response to the publiccomments, the rule text has beenrevised to clarify what would becovered by the prescribed amount andprovisions have been Included In therule to adjust the amount for suchfactors as plant size and reactor type.This adjustment for plant size Is basedon PNL's generic evaluation of the effectof plant size on decommissioning costand overall review of a number of plantcost estimates. An indication of thebases for the prescribed amounts andfor the adjustment Is contained Inaddenda to NUREG/CR-130 andNUREG/CR-W72

(4) The final rule text also indicatesthat amounts are based on activitiesrelated to the defirition of"decommission" In 10 CFR 50.2 and donot include the cost of removal anddisposal of spent fuel or of non-radioactive structures and materialsbeyond that necessary to terminate theNRC license. Costa of disposal ofnonradioactive hazardous wastes notnecessary for NRC license terminationare not Included In the prescribedamounts.

(5) In response to a number ofcomments, the escielation factor.contained In the proposed rule has beenrevised to better account for factorsaffecting increases In decommissioningcost, The factors for labor, energy, andwaste burial are indicated separatelyand are based on the addenda to

NUREG/CRl-130 and NUREG/CR-N72and on NUREG-1307 (Ref. 27).

S. Acceptable funding methods. Theproposed rule listed Internal reserve asone of the funding methods consideredacceptable in providing assurance offunds for decommissioning. In Internalreserve, funds are placed into anaccount or reserve which Is notsegregated from licensee assets and Iswithin the licensee's administrativecontrol. A number of commenters eitherdisagreed with or favored the inclusionof Internal reserve as an acceptablemethod. The following were commentsreceived on this Issue:

(a) Those that disagreed withInclusion of Internal reserve did so forthe following principal reasons:

(1) There may be problems with-liquidity of-the internal reserve if theacquired assets and Investments do notpreserve value over time and there maybe problems In issuing bonds againstthese assets to pay for decommissioning.In partidular, funds could be used fornew nuclear construction or other usessuch as accident cleanup. With thismethod one cannot Insure that moneytaken from customers will be availableIn ihe future for decommissioning. Thiscould cause serious cash flow problemsat the time of deconmissioning,especially if utilities are replacing oldplants with new ones at the same timedecommissioning takes place.

(2) The future financial viability ofutilities cannot be assured and thepotential exists for utility instability andInsolvency. The commenters expressedconcern that the utilities could pot raisefunds for decommissioning If they werehaving severe financial problems orwere facing Insolvency. Commenterscited examples of potential situations.

(3) The level of assurance provided isInadequate and the generation ofInsufficient funds could compromisesafety, cause delays, and cause rateboosts. Nuclear power should pay Itsway fairly. In addition, by not requiringexternal funds NRC has not respondedto the petition for rulemaking made bythe Public Interest Research Group In1977 or to GAO's concern thatdecommissioning coati be paid bycurrent beneficiaries, not futuregenerations. One commenter's analysisindicated that Internal reserve costsexceed external reserve costs when theyare adjusted to equalize relativ6 riskwith respect to the availability of funds.

(b) The commenters who agreed withthe Inclusion of Internal reserve as anaddeptable funding method did so forthe following principal reasons.

(1) The use of internal reserve wouldenhance utilities' financial positions by

* HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24031 1988 .. -

24032 Tederbltig1er i Vol. 54No" P23 Moziday, june 27 1988 / Rules and Regulatiofis

reducing external financing needsaJaddition, utilities have Investments,cash flow, and annual earnings whi,are large compared to decommissioicosts,

(2) The likelihood of Instability anInsolvency Is remote and utilities Srgood Investments and havie large asCommenters noted that utilities whcrates are regulated are essentiallyguaranteed a minimum return oninvestment and have an obligationunder the ratemaking system to paydecommissioning. Commenters alsonoted that In times of financialdifficulty, an Internal reserve Issufficlent because It Is unlikely thatelectric generation service would ncprovided and, even In the case ofInsolvency, there will be a successothe Insolvent utility who would relathe obligation to decommission.

(3) Several commenters supportedInternal reserve because it can earnhigher rate of return, reduces reventrequirements, and provides a reasonbalance between cost and assuranceAlso, commenters noted that there efinancial risks associated with exteireserve.

In developing the Proposed Rule, ICommiasion considered the questtoithe use of Internal reserve In severedocuments. These include NUREG-4Revs. 1-3, "Assuring the Availabilit2Funds for Decommissioning NuclesFacilities," (Ref 14), NUREGfCR-14"Financing Strategies for Nuclear PcPlant Decommissioning." (Ref. 15) aiNUJREGICR-389, 'Utillty FinancialStabilit~y nodd the Availability of Funfor Decommissioning" (Ref. 18). Inaddition, the Commission held a mensoliciting public and industtry viewsdecommnissioning on Septemrber 2s.:and the NRC staff reviewed commeiIn the area of financial assurancesubmitted on NUREC-Oise "DraftGeneric Environmental ImpactStatement on Decommissitoning NucFacilities" (Ref, 20). These reports aimeetings considered several factorsregarding availability of funds for piutilities In the United States. One fatIs that utilities are large, very heavilcapitalized enterprises whose ratescomprehensively regulaede by the S1Public Utility Commissions (PUC) atthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). This factor perthe utilities to charge reasonable ratsubject to reasonable regulation andrudes. In addition, the Commission htaken action recently in thepromulgation of 20 CFR CO.54(w) tolrequirements to establish ornsteproperty damage insurance for useXan accident. Although these Insuran

. .. . . ~ ..l.]... ...m.

proceeds would not be used directly fordecommissioning, they would reduce the.risk of a utility being hit by a largedemand for funds after an accident.Most utilities are now carryingInsurance well In excess of $1 billion.Other factors considered are the longtime period before decommissioningtakes place during which timereasonable assurance of funds fordecommissioning must be maintained.as well as concerns regarding utilitysolvency and potential problemsregarding availability of funds whichmay occur as a result of bankruptcy.

Before publication of the proposedrule, the NRC evaluated the adequacy ofvarious finding methods in light offinancial problems encountered by someutilities which, faced with lower growthIn electricity demand than theyprojected and rapidly increasing costs ofconstruction, had been forced to cancelnuclear plants In advanced stages ofconstruction and the ramifications theseconditions, as well as Issues related tobankruptcy, could have on a utility'sultimate ability to pay fordecommissioning. Details of thisevaluation are contained In NUREG/CR3899, (Ref. l8) prepared by an NRCconsultant. Dr. J. Siegel of the WhartonSchool, University of Pennsylvania.

Based on the results of NUREG/CR-3899 In which It Is Indicated that Internalreserve can be a valid funding methodauid on the considerations discussed Inthe Supplementary Information to theProposed Rule, the proposeddecommissioning rule permitted a rangeof options, Including internal reserve, forproviding assurance that sufficient fundsare available for decommissioning.However, the Supplementaryinformation to the proposed rile notedthat the regulatory approach forassuring funds for decommisioning hadbeen particularly difficult to resolve andspecifically requested additionalInformation and comments In this area.In particular, the Supplementary.Information stated that:

More specifically, CommissionersAsseistine and Bernthal continue lo beconcerned about the vulnerability of theInternal funding mechanism fordecommissioning funds, particularly wherethe funds are used to purchase assets orreduce existing debt.

Based on this concern, CommissionersAsseletine and Berothal requested"public comments on the need toconsider the possibility of Insolvencyand Its Impact on the continuedavailabillty of decommissioning funids."

Although commentera did notgenerally refer specifically to theseparate request for comment by

Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal,a number-of comments, noted above,were received In this area. Those whodisagreed with the inclusion of Internalreserve In the rule cited problems withliquidity of the Internal reserve and withthe future financial viability of utilitieswith resultant problems In providingdecommissioning funds, and stated thatthe level of assurance Is Inadequate. Incontrast. other commenters agreed withthe use of internal reserve citing the factthat the likelihood of instability andinsolvency Is remote, that utilities haveInvestments, cash flow. and annualearnings which are large In comparisonto decommissioning cost, and that theInternal reserve does providereasonable assurance.

As part of the review of thecomments, NRC has had NUREG/CR-3899 updated lo consider the currentsituation In the utility Industry. Thisanalysis Is contained In NUREG/CR-899, Supplement 2, (Ref. 18) which

reviewed six utilities which have beensubject to severe financial distress.Based on the analysis, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1 Indicates that, sinceNUREG/CR-3899 was published in 1984,the financial health of the nuclearutilities has Improved, with theexception of Public Service of NewHampshire {iPSNHi) and that from afinancial standpoint. use of internalreserve currently provides sufcientassurance of funds for decommissioning.The basis for this conclusion Is the factthat the likelihood of future crisesdeveloping, although not Impossible, Isextremely remote; that the total marketvalue of the securities of each of the aixutilities studied substantially exceeds Itsdecommissioning costs; that It Is notnecessarily true that bankruptcy of autility Is tantamount to default ondecommissioning obligations; and thepotential .that the costs ofdecommissioning would be recognizedas a prior obligation with regard tocreditors.

Despite these conclusions. NUREG/CR4899. Supp. 1. notes that PSNH hassaid that, unless it undergoes financialrestructuring and gets the rate IncreaseIt Is seeking. It probably would becomethe first major utility to seek protectionunder the Bankruptcy Act in nearly 50years. (Subsequent to the preparation ofthe analysis of NUREG/CR-S899,Supplement 1, PSNH filed a petition inbankruptcy under Chapter 1l of the U.S.Bankruptcy code.) In addition,Supplement I notes that If PSNH'sSeabrook plant becomes operational.the prospects for PSNH greatly Improvealthough bankruptcy still cannot beprecluded as a possibility due to the

HeinOnline --- 53 Fed. Reg. 24032 1988 .. - * -

Federal Register f Vol. 53, No. 123 /, Mopday: June. 27, .198 /. Ruilqs apd Regulations .24033

-pcitential for large rate hikes and Federal agincies rbspecting thI MF-iinlssiontng the Commliss1 - -.resultant defections from its electzic economics of nuclear power, they do believes It Important not ta Imposesystem. Hence Supplement 1 concludes authorize the NRC to take whatever Inordinate financial burdens oipthat Internal reserve should not be regulatory actions may be necessary to licensees. The modification to theallowed for Seabrook until the finincial protect the public health and safety, proposed rule Is not expected,.to imposeprospects of the utility are clarifie I and including the promulgation of rules such a burden for several reasons. First,the viability of the corporation Insured., prescribing allowable funding methods licensees have 2 years from the effective

In addition, NUREG/CR-3899; Supp. 1, for meeting-decommnissioning costs. (See date of the final rule before they have tonoted that it Is imperative that, In the Pacific Gao & Electric v. State Energy submit infornmation regarding financialcgise of the sale or other disposition of Resources Conserve tion & Developnient assurance. Second, the external reserveutility assets, no monies are distri'uted Commission, 481 U.S.190; 212-13, 217-19 Is a sinking fund accumulated over ato any security holders until a fun Is (1983);see also United Nuclear. period of time. Third, a number of statesestablished to assure payment for Corporatloh v Cdrnon, 553 F. Supp, (accounting for almost 59% of powerdecomnissioning. Supplement I also 1220,1230-32 (DMR.L 1982) and cases reactors) already-require externalrecommended changes in Federal and' . cited therein.) I funding methods. Fourth, recent changesSlate bankruptcy laws relating to . For the foregoing' reasons, the in the tax laWs allowing currentutilities and-the inclusion Ini the Commission continues to be concerned deductions for external reserves mayprospectus of newly Issued iecuri ties of with the use of an Internal reserve. The" reduce the cost differential betweenal explicit statement of thebtility's -Commission notbs the concerns :inteltal fteerve and external reberve.financial obligalions to provide expressed'in NURD3/CR-3899, Supp. I .- FlnallAthe rul does n6t require fundsadequate funds for derommlisioning.. regarding bankrupt:y at PSNH ad well. accumnlatedlo date, hi intemal reservesFurther, Supplement 1 noted-that, as the changing economic and financial to be ttandferred to ekternal feserves,bscause of changing econonic an 1 conditions discussed In NUREG/CR- however those existing funds if left Inifinanciel conditions, the NRC sho id 3899, Supp .1,The Commission also intbrnal reserves would not beconduct periodic reviewi of the overall notes'that'many util)lies are engiging in adceptable for use in meeting thefinancial health of utilities with ongoing diversified financial'activitie's which requirements'of i 50i5(e).(1) a~d(3)-and prospective nuclear facilities. If"- Involve-more financial risk and believes" In a related comment, severalsuch e review Indicates tliheflnana lal ' therefore it is'Incr ibingly'ixnportint to 'coriuenuet'ers discussed the firdingcondition of utilitles taken as a w ole or provide that decommlislohing Tunids be' Methads'they preferred over InternalIndividually Is such that internal seserve provlded on a more assured basts. rejerve. These Included principilly thqdoes not provide reasonable assurance . In additlon:to thzrextbnt thatba tility use of prepayment of the undi or the.oil funds for-decomnissionlng then -Is having severe financial dlfficulties't . use of in external fund coupled withadditional rulemaking or other ste ps the time oftdecomunissloning:lt tnay "insurince against prem~atuire.should be taken to Insure-avallabillity of have difflculty In funiding an internal decommissioning. Principal reasons fozthese funds. - reserve when needed for favoring these meth6dd Include thoi fact

Tie Commnission has considere'j the decommissloni' . 11e CommissIbri that there may be shutdown of areactorcOnclusions In IUREG/CR-38, Supp. recognized that thdetnarket Value of the before the dateof Its expectd eld ofi1, as well as tie public comments , itock of those utilities studied in . fif due to either an accident orreceived onthe tisue. The Comzniission'i "'NUREG/CR89X has exceeded ! problems with reactor aging Orreview In this aria Is confined to Its ' dedommiasloning cost. However, . obsolescence: Consequently. suvffclentst atutory mandate to prdtect the - although the law In this area Is not fully funds for decommissloning fMight notradiological health and safety of the developed; in the e'went of bankruptcy heae been collected by a method irhlchp-iblic and promote the common defense there Is not reasonable assurance that -accumulates funds over projectedand security which stems principally either unsegregated or'segregated reactor life. Conversely, severalfrom the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Internal reserves can be effectively commenters indicated that It Isamended, and the Energy protected from. claims of creditors and appropriate to rely on the propertyReorganization Act of 1974, as amended. therefore internal reserves cannot be damage Insurance requirements of loIrn carrying out Ilb licensing and rlated made legally secuto. In addition. CFR0.54(w) to supplementregulatory responsibilities under l hese because of the natLre of the internal decommissioning funding methods. Theyauts, the NRC has determined that there reserve, the funds c ollected are not argue that, with the substantial amountIs a significant radiation hazard Isolated for use for decommissioning, of property Insurance required, even Inansoclated with nondecommissloaied Instead the utility may use the funds fot the highly improbable.event of annuclear reactors. The NRC has allo other unrelated purposes. iccident-related, prematuredetermined that the public health and For the above reasons, the decormmissloning the utility will stillsafety can best be protected If its Commission concludes that the Internal have sufficient resources available afterregulations require licensees to.uwe reserve does not provide reasonable the decontanination process to carryn ethods which provide reasohable . assurance that funds will be available out decorimmissioning. Some .of theawisurance that, at the time of when needed'to pay the costs of commenters recognized the possibletermination of operatHone, adequate decommissioning and hence does not difficulties In obtaining non-accidentfunds are available so that . provide reasonable assurance that premature decommissioning insurance.'decommissioning can be carried out In a decommissioning will be carried out in a One commenter stated that surety bondssafe and timely manner and that 'lack of manner which protects public health or Insurance are not viable alternativesfunds does not result In delays that may and safety. Accordingly, the proposed for normal decommissioning orceuse potential health and safety . rule has been modified to eliminate the premature decommissioning notproblems. Although the Atomic Energy Internal reserve as a possible method of ssdpclated with an accident. TheAct and the Energy Reorganizatlon Act providing funds for decommissioning. commenter noted that nuclear propertydo not permit the NRC to regulatef rates In reaching its concluslon not to Insurahce would be available only If anor to supersede the 'decisions of E tate or permit use of Internal reserve for Insured event necessitated premature

HeinOnline -- 53 Fea. Reg. 24033 1968 .. ...

243. F**l VM. Vl 3~9 ~J 1 fp~Jre~ , J; Rules and Regulations,.

.decormlmss-onlng and on y In theaniount necessary to repair the -plant fordamages caused by the accident.Premature decommissionIng due fo..regulatory mandate would not becovered. The commenter also noted thalsurely bonds In the amount of $1i0million are not generally available.

The Commlssipn notes that thesecomments must be considered withinthe context of Commission requirementsfor onsite property damage Insurance,the proceeds from which could be usedto decontaminate a reactor after anaccident Although these Insuranceproceeds would not be used directly fordecommnissi6hnngthey would reduce the.risk of a utility being subject to etremendous demand for funds after anaccident The Commisslon hasimplemented Its proposed requirementin 10 CFR 60 .4(wl for slightly over $Sbillion of insurance. An importantconsideration In selecting an acceptablemethod for providing fands fordecommissioning Is that the method bereasonably cost effective. Prepayment offunds has been recognized by severalstudies as being significantly morecostly than the other methojs. In viewof the unlikely nature of the events andthe potential problems being considered,prepayment generally has a cost toohigh for the benefit that would be'realized. Use of insurance for non-accident related decommissioning wasfound in an earlier study performed forthe NRC NUREG/CR-2370 (Ref. 16). tohave potentially serious problems ofinsurability and morathazard and Is notcurrently available. (Moral hazard Is a'term used In the insurance Industry toIndicate a situatlonof laxity withrespect to loss prevention or loss controlwhere those Insured have access to riskpreventionl.) Finally, earlier studies inNUREG-0584 found that surety bondswere not generally available in theamounts necessary for decommissioningpower reactors.

In light of the factors considered,Including the assurance provided by thevarious methods, the unhikely'nature ofthe various events and the cost andpracticality of providing more absoluteassurance by certain methods, theCommission has concluded that thefunding methods listed in the rule asmodified by the exclusion of Internalreserve are adequate.

Two conmenters stated that wellcapitalized, firmly established privateorganizations operating researcb andtest reactors should be allowed toguarantee compliance with financialassurance requirements by use of thecertification process which Is permittedfor government entities. In responqe to

this conunent It Is noted.that certaingovernment licensees are permnitted-inthe amendments to meet the fundingrequirements of the rule by submitting astatement of intent that the appropriategovernment entity will be guarantor ofdecommissioning funds. Privateorganizations were not afforded thatoption In the proposed rule. Thedifferent treatment arises because there-is reasonable assurance that theappropriate government entity, whichhas the power of taxation will provideadequate funding in the.future todecommission the facility in a manner-which protects public health whereasthis Is n6t necessarily the case withprivate organizations even If they arecurrently adequately capitalized. It theyhave no funds for decommissioningthere can be problems with completionof decommissioning. As noted in SectionC.5 below, use of parent companyguarantees backed up by financial testswill be permitted for privateorgaizatlions operating research andtest reactors.

Four commenters Indicated agreementwith proposed I 50.82(c)(1) which wouldrequire a licensee pldanning to delaycompletion of decommissioning byIncluding a period of safe storage orlong term surveillance to place fundsInto an external fund or use a surety orcertification method, while fourcommenters disagreed with the proposalIndicating that utilities should not berequired to shift to external funding. Inresponse, as noted In the response to aPrevious comment, the proposed rulehas been modified to delete Internalreserve as an acceptable furidingmethod. Because there Is as great orgreater need for assurance of funds overthe extended timeframe involved with afacility in SAFSTOR when the facility Isno longer a revenue producing asset.- theproposed requirement in i S0.62fc)(1) forexternal funding during SAPSTORremains.

4.funding plans. A number ofcommenters indicated that It wasimportant for the funding plan to beupdated over the operating life of thefacility because there would beIncreases In costs over facility life. Somecommenters indicated that there shouldbe periodic adjustments of the fundinglevel, and most said, there should be aspecific frequency indicated In theregulations with most sayingfrequencies Of 5 years and someIndicating it should be more frequent.

In response, the CoSmission ages.with the Importance of updating thefunding plan over the operating life ofthe plant. This was reognized in theproposed rule which requires that a

funding plan Include "means of'adjusting cost estimates and associatedfunding levels over the life of thefaciliy and which also requires eachreactor licensee to update his costestimate fiat or abo t5 years prior to theprojected end of operations." In order to.%clarify that the updates should takeplace over the course of the facilitylifetime, the proposed rule has beenmodified to indicate that a funding planInclude means of adjusting cost r'estimates and associated funding levelsperiodically over the life of the facility.The frequency for these updates Is notincluded In the rule but would beIncludedin regulatoryguldance underconsideration. Thls wilt provide moreflexibility In dealing with different typesof licensees and financialconsIderatIons. 1 Is expected thatregulatory guidance will Indicate thefrequency ofadjustment for costestimate and funding levels..A number of commenters objected to

the requirement In the rule thatsubmittals of reactor funding plans be acondition of license. The commentersindicated that by doing so any change Inthe funding plan coutd be interpreted asa license amendment. The cormmentersargued that this was unnecessary sincethe funding requirements do not have adirect impact on the safe operation ofthe plant. This could have a n6gativeeffect on continued plant operations.even though there was no safetyconcern. Most commenters argued thatthe requirements would be betterpromulgated as regulations which wouldnot decrease NRC's enforcementauthority. The Commission hasconsidered these comments in light ofthe need to provide reasonableassurance of the availability of funds fordecommissioning and, in response, Inorder to build flexibility into the rulehas modified the proposed rule to makethe reactor funding requirements aspecific regulatory requirement InI 50.75 instead of a licehse condition.

5. Funding requirements for materiallicensees. For-material licensees, theproposed rule contained provisions thatan applicant or licensee may submit acertification that financial assurance fordecommissioning will be provided in aprescribed amount stipulated Inproposed 10 CFR Parts 90 40, and 70.The amoupt Is dependent on thequantity of licensed material which thelicensee possesses. Two comnmentersIndicated that the cost amountsprescribed In ihe regulations for 10 CFRParts 30,40, and 70 licensees are toohigh for the. quantities of material listedand that.the prescribed cost amountsihould be set more realistically or the


* ~~. Federa1.Regloter I Vol. 53, .No..'123/.Mo ddy,..Jue.'2749.8' [Rulef-.and. Regulations, 203

prescribed radioactivity levels should beIncreased. One of the two.commentarswh,, felt the estimates were too highnoted that the multiples of Appendcl Cqua ntities prescribed in the rule forsome Isotopes amount to absolutequa ntitles of less than a curie and theconmenter did not think that thedecommissioning costs for such alicense would amount to the sumsprescribed In the proposed rule. Thoother commenter Indicated as anexe mple that the amount of Am-24 Inuns ealed form requiring adecommissioning cost of $500,000 I IQmillicuries. Three other commenteru feltthat the prescribed amounts appealed tobe too low and cited specific examplesto support their claim. These Included.the following: Cleanup of a U.SjAnnybuilding which had burned cost ovE r$300,000; cleanup of the extensivecontamination at a USAEC contractorfacility at Weldon Spring cost$200,000,000; cleanup of four Igloos atthe Seneca Apny Depot by the U.S.Anny cost $300D000 to $1,000,000;cleanup and storage of contaminatedsoil by DOE In the vicinity of-the "W.R.Crace and Stepaen Chemical faciliti's *cost $2-4 million. In addition, one of thecormmenters pointed out that use 9fcontractors to perform the work couldIncrease costs.

I n response to the commenters whofell the estimates were too high, It Is theopinion of the Commission, based on thedata base cited In the SupplementaryInformation to tthe proposed ruie, it-atthe prescribed amounts are reasonableestimates and that it Is not the rule'Intent that the indicated costs be used Inevery situation. The purpose of se3ingthe amounts Is to provide an approachwhich minimizes the burden on themajority of licensees and on.the NECwhile providing assurance of funds for.decommissioning. If. In a particular case,

.the prescribed cost amounts are tot..high, the licensee has the option ofsubmitting a funding plan with a facilityspecific cost estimate.

In response to the commenters whofellt the estimates were too low, certain'.points must be considered In asses ilngthe comments and the examples cited..Some of the examples appear to becases where there was accidentalspread of contamination beyond thatnormally encountered. The fundingassurance provisions of the proposedrule are not intended to address thiecouts of cleanup resulting from anaccident. Provisions for funding cleanupof accidental releases of radloacti amaterial were noted as being underconsideration In a separate rulemaking(sea Advanced Notice of Proposed

.RulemaklingpublisheciJune7, 198$, 50FR 23960); . ..

'Another polnt to consider is thatcertain facilities contain largerquantities of radioactive material thanare specified In the sections of the ruleamendments (I.e., §5130.35,40.38, and70.25) permitting use of a prescribed.'funding amount. Licensees of thesefacilities would be required to submit adecommissioning funding plan.containing a cost estiwate specific to'those larger facilities. Under therovisions of the appropriate sections,

ficensees of these larger facilities wouldbe permitted to Initially use a prescribedamount of $750,000 In their financialassurance planning. However, use ofthis prescribed amount Is only atemporary action which Is Intended toreduce the administrntive effortassociated with inmplementation of therule amendments and. these licenseesare required by the indicated section ofthe rule to eventually submit a fundingplan (With the facility decommissioningcost estimate) at the time of applicationfor license renewal.

PNL has provided updated.decommissioning cost estimates to NRCfor use In the Final GenericEnvironmental Impac;t Statement.Appropriate Information has been takenfrom those updates.for use in the finalrule to account for fdotprs such asInflation. The cost estimates for materiallicensees do not specifically include theassumed use of contractor costsbecause, based on the PNL studies. theprescribed amountsalisted In the rule areconsidered reasonable In providingadequate funds so that a facility doesnot become a conceri to public healthand safety. The addietional expenseassociated with requiring all materiallicensees io set aside in their fundingmethod the added costs of assuming useof a contractor Is not justified comparedto the small number of licenseesexpected to have to use contractors.

The estimated cosl. ofdecommissioning isabased on activitiesrelated to the definition of"decommission" In ID CFR 30.2 (andsimilar sections In other parts) and doesnot include the cost of removal anddisposal of nonradloactive structuresand materials beyond that necessary toterminate the 'NRC license. Disposal of.nonradioactive hazardous waste notnecessary for NRC license termination isnot covered by these regulations butwould be treated by appropriateagencies having responsibility overthese wastes.

Several comments were received onthe proposed rule sections which listfunding methods that 10 CFR Part 30, 40,

and 70 appiicants and licensees may useand that are consideredatovprovidereasonable assurance-of the availabilityof funds for decommissioning. Fivecomment'rseindicated that this list wastoo restrictive and .that financial tests oflicensees should be utilized indetermining acceptablefunding methodsformaterials licensees. Thesecommenters argued that-use of financialtesls on a case-by-case basis'wouldImprove the degree of financi'al.'assurance and eliminate unnecessary.cost'burdens for many non-utility: non-government entitles. As precedents andexamples of tests which could be usedby NRC, comnenrers generally referdto the Minahcial tests contained In 40CFR Parts 254 and 285 for hazardouswaste facilities regulated by EPA. Thecommenters Indicated that these testscould be used-alone or combined withlicensee guarantees of funds, with self-Insurance or with Internal reserve asacceptable methods for assuring fundsfor decommissioning. One commenterIndicated that'letters of credit provideda cost-effective method for hisoperations.

The Commission did not Include thefinancial test as an acceptable fundingmethod for materials facilities In theproposed rule. It was felt that because ofthe potential for changing licenseeflnanclal.conditions and the fairlylengthy time period Involved beforedecommissioning would take place thatthe financial test would not providesufficient assurance of the availability.of funds'for decommissioning. Also,additional staff time could be necessaryto monitor the financial status of anumber of licensees.*This position andthe funding methods listed In theproposed decommissioning rule wereconsistent with the funding methodslisted in earlier NRC promulgated rulesin 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.regarding requirements for funding thedecontamination and decommissioningof uranium mills and tailings, and In 10CFR Part el regarding funding forclosure of low.level-waste burialgrounds..

The commenters point out that the,Environmental Protection Agenc$": *permits the use of financial tests whenaccompanted by corporate guaranteesfor Its hazardous waste facitatles and'recommended that the NRC use similarfinancial tests for meeting financialassurance requirements. The staff irecognizes that financial tests may beuseful In certain situations and canminimize Impacts on licensees. Hence,the regulation has been modified In thefinal rule to specifically permit licenseesto use parent company guarantees with

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Ret. 24035 1988 - -_

24038 - Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 23 / Monday, Ji -27,1988 / Rules and Regulations- -

accompanying financial tests to meetthe financial assurance requirements ofthe regulation. The use of the parentcompany guarantee and financial test Istaken from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency's regulations 40 CFRParts 264 and 265, Use of the parentcompany guarantee and financial testprovides assurance in that the companywill provide an Independentcommitment beyond that of the licenseeto expend funds. This requirement isconsistent with the NRC's PplicyGuidance Regarding Parent Companyand Licensee Cuarantees for UraniumRecovery Licensees Issued In December195. A parent company guarantee maynot be used In combination with theother financial methods listed In the ruleto satisfy the requirements of thUsection.

Other funding methods. includingletters of credit, will continue to beacceptable for providing assurance offunding. Use of prepayment or otherexternal'trust funds Is different inapproach from use of a surety bond,Insurance or other guarantee method.With prepayment, the licensee isactually using the Instrument to pay fordecommT~ssioning of the facility, whilewith the second approach, a financialInstrument Is used as backup to pay fordecommissIoning In the event that thelicensee Is unable to complete theseactivities If a surety, insurance, or otherguarantee method Is used to actuallypay for decommissioning, the licensee isstill fully responsible for all of Itsdecommissioning requirements.

NRC intends to periodically reviewthe overall financial status of licenseesto assess the effectiveness of thefunding methods permitted in theregulations.

One comnenter was concerned that.In the case of licensees having materialslicensed under more than one part of 1oCFR and used within common facilities,the rule would require a separatedecommlssloning plan for each licenseand recommended that a consolidatedplan be allowed. In response to thiscomment, In some cases wherebyproduct source, and/or specialnuclear material are used in the samefacilities, It would be very difficult todevelop separate decommissioning orfunding plans for terminating eachlicense, In particular where there IsInterdependence of facilities, operations,or projected decommissioning activities,Consolidated plans based on acombined analysis of the facilitydecommisslonlng would be permitted. Ifa licensee operatei multipleIndependent facilities and/or sites undera single license, a consolidated

decommissioning or funding plan wouldhave to delineate procedures and costestimates for each facillty/lIte. Theregulatory guides currently underconsideration would Include furtherdetails concerning these situations. Therule Is broad enough to encompass thesesituations.

Two commenters expressed concernregarding the licensee's responsibilityfor decommissioning. One comnmenterindicated that It was not clear in theproposed rule whether financialassurance requirements apply to eachlicense, each licensee, or each facilityand recommended that the licensee bespecified as the responsible unit. Theother commenter expressed the concernthat there exists the potential forreducing companies' llability fordecontamination activities should theNRC approved funding plan beInadequate.

In response to these comments, Itshould be noted that amended 10 CFRParts 30, 40, and 70 require that eachholder of a specific license providefinancial assurance for decommissloninjgthus specifically Indicating that thelicensee Is the responsible party forfinancial assurance. Funding anddecomunissloning plans submitted by aholder of multiple materials licensesmay be consolidated. It Is expected thatthe requirements contained is amended10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70 will providereasonable assurance that funds areavailable for decommissioning nuclearfacilities. Specillcally, 5 30.35 (andrelated sectfons in other parts) requiressubmittal of a funding plan containingan estimate of the cost ofdecommlssloning or use of acertification of an aniount prescribed Inthe regulations. The cost estimatecontained in the funding plan will bebased on site conditions and can use, asa base, information developed byBattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory(PNL) In a series of reports ontechnology, safety, and costs ofdecommissioning nuclear facilities.NRC's review and evaluation of theestimate can use not only the PNLreports but experience gained at othermaterials facility decommnisslonings.Section 30.35 also provides that thelicensee Include provisions In thefunding plan for adjustingdecommissioning cost estimates andassociated funding levels over the life ofthe facility to take Into account changingecononic and technical conditions. EvenIn the event thst these'efforts result In ashortfall of funds at decomtnsslon1g amatter which concerns the 6ommenter,the regulations specifically state that itIs the licensee's responsibility to fund

and carry out decommissloning In amanner'whicb protects public healthand safety. Accordingly, the licenseewould be under a continuing obligationto find the means for completingdecommissIonIng.

6. Funding requirements for Federalllcensees.One commenter, theDepartment of the Army, Indicated thatthe proposed requirements for Federalagencies, spcifically proposed sectionsIn Parts 30,40, 50,70, and 72. requiring acertification that the appropriategovernment entity will be guarantor ofdecommissionIng funds, appearInconsistent with Federal statute. Thecommenter suggested either NRC shouldspearhead statutory relief or establish aFederal agency funding strategy In orderto satisfy the Intent of the NRC proposedrule.

The Commission, In responding to thiscomment, notes that It Is based on theprovisons of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31U.S.C 1341. The Anti-Deficiency Actprohibits the creation of an obligation orthe expenditure of funds In excess ofappropriations unless the contract orobligation Is authorized by law. Thepurpose of the Act is to "keep alldepartments of the Govenunent. In thematter of Incurring obligations forexpenditures, within the limits andpurposes of appropriations annuallyprovided for conducting their lawfulfunctions." 42 Comp. Gen. 272, 275(1962). The Act applies to transactionsamong government agenfies as well astransactions between the governmentand the private sector. See 59 Comp.Gen. 38, 89 (1980).

While the Anti-Deficiency Act mightprohibit the expenditure of funds fordecommisslonIng In the absence of anappropriation, nothing In the Anti-Deficiency Act prevents a governmentagency from seeking appropriations forfuture oblIgations. 'Nor Is there anythingin the Act that bars a governmentagency from obligating approprlatedfunds for the purpose of complying withrules Imposed by other governmentagencies at the time those rules requirean expenditure of funds. Thus, Inpractice, use could be made of otherfunding methods besides thecertification option such as externalfunding.

As discussed in the SupplementaryInfornation to the proposed rule, thepurpose of the proposed sections withwhich the commenter Is concerned Is topermit licensees to obtain a guaranteethat a government agency will assumefinancial responsibillty fordecommissioning the facility. Thiswould most likely be possible when thelicensee Is a State or Fedgral agency or

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24036 1988..I

- - - - Federal Registex / Vol. 5-, No. 123 I Monday, June 27, 198 I Rules and Regulations - .-24037.

_ _ _ _ = ! .. .

* 1 State-affiliailed organizationauch as auniversity or hospital. This provision ofdhe rule recognizes that these llc3inseesshould be capable of providing f inds fordecommissioning. The Intention of theproposed nrle Is that these State andFederal licensees should, early hii theirracilities' lifetime, be aware of tdeBventual decommissioning of thefacillty, specifically Its cost and maketheir funding bodies aware of thoiseeventual coals. The provisions of therule requiring naming a guaranttr offunds may be subject tomisinterpretation. Accordingly, Theproposed rule Is being modified toIndicate thit Federal and State licenseesshould provide a statement df Intent thatthey have an estimate of the cost todecommission their facilities inI thatthey will obtain funds when necessary.for decommIssioning. This modilcatlonshould satisfy the need for asswancefrom these facilities within theconstraints of governmental budgetarypollcles.

7. General comments on financialassurance. A number of commentersdisagreed specifically with the reed for.the funding provisions contained In theproposed rule for electric utlitles. The.primary reasoons cited by thecommenters for the disagreemen t werethe following: Utilities are regulited byState and Federal rate regulators whoare bound to set a utility's rates suchthat reasonable costs of serving thepublic are recovered; NRC has zecentlyeliminated financial qualificationsrequirements for reactors and this Is asimilar situation most utilities tlreadyrecover decommissioning costs in rates;utilities recognize that those who benefitfrom the plant should pay fordecommissioning; and that the proposedrule will impose a financial pen lty onutilities and wiU complicate the existingprocess.

In contrast, a number of othercommenters Indicated that there was aneed for rules In this area because theyhad several concerns over whetheradequate funds will be available fordecommissioning. Several coniuentersexpressed concern that there must bta'clear statement with regard to theresponsibillty for decommissloriing.andthat utilities should not be able to evadeliability for funding of decommissioningcosts. In particular one commenterIndicated that a utility could avoldliability for decommissioning b:, forming"holding companies" which wouldprotect assets from the liability of ashutdown reactor.The commen terIndicated that these holding companiescould diversify Into new venturesoutside the scope of Federal and State

regulation, could take funds the powercompany, and thus; leave the electricutility portion of the company In afinancially weak condition. Thisfinancially weak utility might find Itvery difficult to fund decommissioningand therefore beccme a threat to publichealth and safety. Thd commenterIndicated that the nrle should provideguidelines to address these Issuesotherwise ratepay ere would be stuckwith this problem and radiologicalhazards may exist.

Several commerters addressed theIssue of the proper roles of NRC andState and Federal ratemaking agenciesIn establishing funding methods. Somecommenters Indicated that the rule aspresented Is satisfactory as long as it isclear In allowlng cither Involved Stateand Federal authorities to decide Issuesrelated to the rate making Impact ofdecommissioning fund accumulation.The commenters salso stated thai therule should not go any further Inapplying more prescriptive requirementsor pre-empting Sttat laws and that thespecific funding method should not bepres;cribed by the rule but should bedetemi-ned by thet ratemaking

- authorities becauoip they arp In the bestposition to deternine. the most effectiveand economic method to arrive at theleast cost option, taking Into accounttaxation. accountng, financial and otherlocal considerations. One commenterlndicated that the rule should explicitlypermit State andl'ederal ratemekingagencies to apply more stringent fundingrequirements. Coinmenters Indicatedthat NRC's jurisdictional responsibilityand therefore Its principal concernshould be-that decommissloning Iscarried out In a sfae manner and thatratemaking bodles should haveresponsibility for choosing cost-effectivefunding methods. One commenterexpressed concern that there may beserious Jrisdfctkinal problems anddisputes with NRC' rule In that NRC Isseeking to exerciae control overeconomic mattemn related todecommissioning expene. Thecommenter Indlcatedthatthe NRCshould malle It clear what functions ofother ratemaking agencies it Intends tosupplant and how Its regulations will fitwith existln Stalle and Federalregulation of decommissioning costs.One commenter questioned how NRCwill implement tie rule In the case oflicensee whose'rate regulator does notallow the licenses to recover funds in Itsrates and set up it decommissrongngfund.

In response to these comments Itshould be noted Ihat the Commission's

.stafutory mands Ie to protect the

radiological health and safety of thepublic and promote the common defenseand securily stems principally from theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,and the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, as amended. In carrying out Itslicensing and related regulatoryresponsibilities under these acts, theNRC has determined that this regulationIs needed because there Is a significantradiation hazard associated withnondecommlssloned nuclear facilities.The NRC has also determined that thepublic health and safety can best beprotected by promulgating a rulerequiring reasonable assurance that atthe time of termination of operationsadequate funds are avallable so thatdecommissioning can be carried out In asafe and timely manner and that lack offunds does not result In delays that maycause potential health and safetyproblems. Although these Acts do notpermit the NRC to regulate rates or tointerfere wlth the decisions of State orFederal agencies respecting theeconomics of nuclear power, they doauthorize the NRC to take whateverregulatory'actions may be necessary toprotect the public health and safety,including the promulgation of rulesprescribing allowable funding methodsfor meeting decommissloning costs. (SeePacirfc Gas 5' Electric v. State EhergyResources Conservation a DevelopmentCommissIon, 481 U.S. 190, 212-3 217-1941983); see also United Noc ealCorporotion v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp.1220a1230-32 (D.RJ. 1982) and casescited therein.) The fact that theseregulatory actions may have aneconomic Impact does not mean thatthey lie outside NRC.s jurisdiction.

The Commission has considered theroles of the state Public UtilityCommissions (PUCo) and the FederalEnerg Regulatory Commission (FERC),as well as the NRC, in establishingacceptable methods available to nuclearpower reactor licensees foraccumulating funds fordecommissloning. Each of theseaganices has a role In this area. TheFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionhas the responsibility for setting ratesfor the transmission and sale(wholesale) of electricity by investor-owned utilities In Interstate commerceand authorizes the conditions, rates, andcharges for Interconnections amongelectric utilities. The sales of electricityfor which FERC would set rates aresmall, comprising about 13 percent oftotal U.S electricity sales. State public

-utility commissions have theresponsib~ilty for setting rates for retailsales ofelectricity to homeowners andcompanies doing business ln their

I

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24037 1988 -.

24038 - - Fedral Register / Vol. 53, No. 223 / Monday, June 27, 1988 -/ Rules and Regulations - -N mwwu

states. The NRC stafl has had contactwith staff of the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission and with Stateagencies. These agencies Indicated thatthey recognize the NRC's role In settingstandards with respect to health andsafety, and, In particulasr, that theysupport the rule as it was promulgatedwith certain modifications as long as ItIs understood that states may chooseamong the funding alternatives based ontheir specific responsibilities forprotecting the Interests of consumers bydeveloping reasonable rates forproviding public utility gervices. Underthe existing statutory scheme the NRChas the authority to require s'iecificfunding arrangements In order to protectpublic health and safety whereas theother agencies do not. NRC's ruleamendments permit a State or Federalrate regulatory agency to choose fromamong the funding alternatives listed Inthe final rule and to choose levels'offunding based on specific considerationsrelated lo theirratemakingresponsibilities, as for example cost andequitability for early ratepayers versuslater ratepayers.

In response to comments that thereshould not be funding requirements fordecommissioning because financialqualification requirements forconstruction have been eliminated, it IsNRC's view that the elimination offinancial qualification requirementsdoes not eliminate the need forproviding reasonable assurance of fundsfor decommissioning. When the rule onelimination of financial qualificationswas proposed, the Commission stated:that decommissloning was moreproperly dealt with in the separaterulemaking then underway. Inpromulgating the proposed rule ondecommissioning. CommissionerDernthal drew a distinction betweendecommissioning assurance, and the ruleon eliminating the financial qualificationreview at the licensing stage. Pactorscited by the commenters, such as thepresence of rate regulators orrecognition that those who benefit frotpplants should pay all costs, do notprovide reasonable assurance in end ofthemselves that health and safety willbe protected.* Some commenters stated that theproposed rule would Impose a financialpenalty on utilities and complicate the-existing regulatory process The NRCstaff does notbelieve that this willoccur. The proposed rule has the narrowfocus of protecting public health andsafety by having in place basic minimumstandards for funding methods which'provide reasonable assurance of fundingfor decommissioning In a safe and

jimely manner. The methods allowedInclude a variety Qf methods currentlyavailable.tolicenuees. As noted In the Iresponse to a comment In Section C.3,the proposed rule has been modified todelete internal reserve as an acceptablefunding method. howeer, tQis Is notexpected to add significantly tolicensge's burden fbr the reasonsdiscussed In Section C.S. As nioted in ,Section C.2 the certification of fundinglevels which may be more than but notless than amounts prescribed in the ruleIs Included as a means for minimizinglicensee burden In complying with the -atnended regulations. The rule, and the* NRCs implementation of It, does notdeal with financial ratemaking Issuessuch as rate ofrfund collection,procedures for fund collection, cost to'"ratepayers, taxation effects, equitabilitybetween early and later ratepayers,accourilng procedures; ratepayer versusstockholder considerations-,responsiveness to change and othersinjldr concerns. In addition, the ruledoes 6io1 deal with costs of demolition of'honradl6bdtive structures andequipmient or with bite restoration aftertermination of the NRC license. Thesematteri are outside NRCs Jurisdictionahd 'are the responsibility of the StatePUC's arid FERC. As outlined above,considering the distinct roles that theNRC and thq ratemaking agencies have,NRC will not become Involved In therate regulation process as It related todecommissioning. Based on the abovediscussion, the Commisilon believesthat the rule Is an equitable means of*requiring reasonable assurance offunding for decommissioping withoutImposing an undue burden on licensees.

With regard to the specific concernregarding formation of holding'companies, the NRC could condition theapproval of the decommissioning planby requiring the licensee to Includesufficient funds In the establishment ofthe holdingjcompany. In other words,the NRC would not approve thedecommissloning plan unless theholding company had sufficient assets tomeet its obligations pursuant to thedecommissioning plan In addition to itsnormal obligations. Thus, the licenseecould not sequester assets and liabilitiesin a manner which would defeat thedecommissioning plan. The NRC wouldhave sufficient authority under theAtomic Energy Act and Its existingregulations thatr if a utility were to try toreorganize In order to evade Itsdecommisstoning obligations, theCommission would be able to take

m actloh to prevent any adverse healthand safety Impacts,

Ile commenters also Indicated thatthere must be a clear statement with'egard to the responsibility forde=ommIssloning the SupplementaryInformation t6the proposed rule statesthat "The licensee Is tesponsible'forcompleting deconiiissloning in h.manner thaf protects health and safety.In addition lie SupplementaryInformation and the text of the rulemake clear that the licensee must takeresponsibilityfor planning fordecommissioning by providing areasonable level of assurance that fundsare available fordecommissioning and.at the time of permanent termination ofoperations, by submitting adecommissioning plan which addressesthe choice of decommissioningalternatives, methods to control "occupational and publicjhealth andsafety, the planned final radiationsurvey, and funding fordecommissioning.'These provisionsmake clear that the licensee has thelegal responsibility to plan for andaccomplish decommissioning of thefacility by preparing the property fo~rrelease for un-restricted use and that thisresponsibility cannot be evaded.D. Residual Radloactivity'

Commetiters expressed concerns'akout the absence of residualradioactivity limits, and urged the NRCto develop such levels as quickly aspossible. Reasons given were health andsafety concerns, diffculty ofdecommissioning planning, andcommonality 'of objectives concerningwaste burial and decommissioningrequiring a deminimis level. Severalcommenters n'made specific comments onthe numeric value of the residual limitand how It should be chosen.Cdmmenters also expressed concernthat this rule should not be issued untilthe rule on residual radioactivity level IsIssued because without it one cannotplan or estimate cost and entirely satisfyfinancial assurance requirements.Commeziters also indicated that the~value of residual radioactivity limits willimpact cost for non-power reactors.

The..Commission is participating In anEPA organized Interagency working.group which Is developing Federalguidance on acceptabla residualradioactivity levels which would permitproperty to be released for unrestricteduse. Proposed Federal guidance Isanticipated to be published by EPA.NRC Is planning to Implement thisguidance as soon as possible. TS eselection of an acceptable level Isooutshde the scope of this rulemaking;Currently criteria for residualcontaminatuon levels do exist and

HeinOnline-- 53 Fed. Reg. 24038 1988 .,

: Federal. Reglster /-Vol. o3, No.-123 / Monday, June 27,1988 '1 Rules and Regulations 24039

research and telt reactors are bieIndecominlssloned using present gvianccontained in Regulatory Cuide .118 forsurface contamination plus case-l3y-caseconslderatlohi'for direct radiatloi. Asan example, NRC provided-such criteriaIn letters to Stanford University, dated8/17181 and 4121/62 providing"Radiation criteria for'releasa-of thedismantled Stanford Research Reactort1 unrestricted access." The NRC Iscurrently developing Interim guidancevilth respect to residual contaminatloncriteria. The cost estimate in a fuidingplan can be based on current crit Mraand guidance. regarding residualradioactivity levels for unrestrictad use.The Information In the studies byEaltella Northwest Laboratory (Refs. 2thru 13) and Oak Ridge NationalLaboralory (Refs. 17 and 19) on

*decommissioning have Indicated that Inany reasonable range of residualrldloactivilty limits, the cost ofdecommissioning Is relativelyInsensitive to the radioactivity Ieiel anduse of cost data' based On currentcriteria should provide a reasonableestimate. Even In situations where the'residual radioactivity level might havean effect on decommissioning cost, withthe update provision In the rule it Isexpected that the decommissioning fundavailable at the end of facility lifer willapproximate closely the actual cc st ofdecommissioning.

It Is Imperative that decommisionlingregulations In 10 CFR Parts 30,40, 50 70,and 72 be Issued at this time becs use ItfI Important to establish flnancta'*assurancq provisions, as well as otherdecomrnmsl6ning planning provisions.as soon as possible so that funds will beavallabld to carry out decommissioningfiX a manner which protects pubbihealth and sfety. Based on the need forthe decommissioning rule to suppfementprovisions cuxiently existing wit thosecontained In the rule awenrdmenti, theCommission bleve's'that the rule canand should be Issued now.AE. EnvironmenktlRerfew Requintments

A number of commmenters wereconcerned that the proposed rule wouldnot require the preparation of an 'environmental Impact statement INS) Inconnection with each decommiss oning'or a reactor but would require on' y anenvironmental assessment (EA) unrlessthe assessment showed that an EISshould be prepared in a particula, case.while other comrnenters made apiciflCt-comments-supporting this aspect of theproposed rule, Of the commenternopposed, several thought that theproposed rule violated the Natio ealEnvironmental Policy Act, onecommenter felt that there needed to be

more successful experience atdecommissioning various types ofreactors before It could be decided thatan EA was sufficient another suggestedthat an EIS should be prepared for majorfacilities such as power reactors andfuel fabrication facilities but an EAwould be approprialte for smallerfacilities, and one commenter suggestedthat there should be an BIS but thatreference to the GEIS could be allowedif careful study or I asting or both at agiven facility showed that the genericapproach was adequate. .

A number of commenters whoopposed the elimination of therequirement for a site-specific MISargued that the ElS at licensing couldnot adequately estimate Impacts indetail because muich could change In the30 to 40 years before decommissioning.Although the proposed rule discussedthe fact that EIS' at licensing shouldaddress the Impacts ofdecommissioning, the analysis of thoseImpacts at'that timit is not considered lotake the place of evaluatingenvironmental Impacts at the time of

' decommissioning. At the time ofdecommissioning. it large quantity ofwaste must be handled and disposed of;

'this waste Is essentially a result ofhaving operated. The NRC action to betaken at the time of decommissioning Isto approve an appropriate method ofhandling this waste. Alternativemethods ofthandling this waste willhave different ImpEicts which can besystematically assessed.

The Commission's primary reason foreliminating a mandatory MIS fordecommissioning Iii that the Impactshave been considered generically InmaGElS. The Commisstion determined thatexamination of theise impacts and theircumulative effect on the environmentand their integi;atdon into the wastedisposal process could beat beexamined generically. A final, updatedGEIS has been issued (Ref. 20). TheGELS shows that the difference Inimpacts among the basic alternatives fordecommissioning Is' small, and the doseImpact of decommissioning Is small,whatever alternative Is chosen, Incomparison with the Impact acceptedfrom 40 years of licensed opera tio. Therelative Impacts at expected to besimilar from plant to plant, so that a:site-specific EBI would result in the"same conclusions es the GElS withregard to methods of decommissionlngAlthough some commetters correctly.p.olnt out that an Lk Is much lessdetailed in its assessment of Impactsthan an MS, if the Impacts fbr aparticular plaht are sirnilficantlydifferent from thosu studied jenerically

becauie'bf siltespeific cbnsIderatl6ns,'the environmental aisessment woulddiscover those arid lay the foundationfor the preparation of an ISB. If theImpicts for a Paricular plant are notsignificantly different, a Finding of NoSignificant Impact would be prepared. Inanswer to the tomment concerningviolation of NEPAthe Commission'srules concerning EA's bnd MS's complywith case law and Council ohEnvironmental Quality regulations. Inresponse to the concern that decisionson decommissIoning will be madewithout public Input, decommWssioningInvolves amendment of the operainglicense and the NRC rules provide anavenue for public Input with respect tolicense amendment.F. Other Genera) Comments

A number of comments of a general-nature, some of which were outside thescope.of the regulation, were received.Detailed responses to individualcomments are contained In NUREG-1221. General comments'discussedbelow include questions regardingapplicability of the regulations todifferent licensees and those regardingwaste disposal.1. Applicability of regulation to

different licensees. Some commenterswere concerned that the regulations mayhave been drafted with power reactorsIn mind and applied to hon-powerreactors without-adequate realization orconsideration of the differences In thelevel of difficulty in decommissioningbetween these classes of facilities. Theysuggested that the Mule shoulddistinguish between reactor types andmake requirements appropriate for non-power reactors. One commenter pointed,out that the cost of decommissioning.research reactors are considerably lessthan those for power reactors and alsothat there was considerable experienceIn decommissioning research reactorsand that there wereho uncertainties.Another commenter Indicated thatadequate budgets were difficult toobtain, that the "existence of researchreactors at universities hangs on a thinthread," and that the burden ofadditional requirements could causethese threads to be cut. One commentersuggested that the health and safety ofthe public Is better protected If researchreactors are operating and effectiverather than to have them shut down ormade Ineffective and that additionalrules 'which result in "nonproductive"work and costs take resources neededfor effective-research centers.

In response, ft should be noted'thatthe Comnilsilon has not drafted the rule-amendments for power reactors and

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24039 1988.

24040 - - Federal Regiale'r- / Vol._53, No. -IM / Mon. day_,_ J itne 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations -24P40 -. Federal Register I Vo1753, No. 1231 Monday, June 27. 1988 / Rules and Regulationsthen applied It lo non-power reactorswithout talkrig Into consideration thedifferences. The data base Included acontractor study addressing thetechnology, safety, and costs ofdecommissioning research and testreactors (Ref. 4). The commentsconcerning lowqr costs, moreexperience fewer hazards, and open-ended operating life are true however,these factors have been considered. Therule does distinguish between powerand non-power reactors In the methodsallowed for fnanclal assurance. Themethods allowed for non-power reactorsare the same as for materials licenseesand require commitment or guarantee at.startup of the total amount of fundsneeded for decommissioning. whereaspower reactor licensees havesthe optionof building up the fund over facility life.As a means of minimizing the buren,Federal or State governiment llcenseesmay provide a statement of IntentIndicating that funds fordecommissioning will be obtained whennecessary. The burden of providingfinancial assurance In the case ofprivate non-power reactors isunavoidably greater, but will be In linewith the projected costs for theparticular reactor. The rmarks Of thecommenter concerned about existenceof research reactors hanging on a thinthread, In fact. support the conclusionthat financial assurance Is needed In thecase of research reactors.

In regard to decommissioning plans,non-power reactors were neverexempted from submitting"dismantlement plans." The rule sets outthe contents of decommissioning planswith no distinction for classes ofreactors. However, the level of effort indeveloping plans and In the amount ofmaterial submitted will vary in practicecommensurate with the level of effortrequired for the decommissioning. TheCommission has attempted to minimizethe burden bf complying with these rulesto the extent possible.

2. Waste disposal considerationsrelated to decommissioning. A numberof commenters indicated that NRC mustcarefully study wastes resulting fromdecommissioning and provide properclassification of these wastes.Commenters stated thatdecommissioning standards shouldinclude clear definitions of high-level(including spent fuel), low-level, and"intermediate level" wastes andconsideration should be given to meansof transport and proper disposal fordifferent types of decommissioningwastes so that wastes are not placedInto burial grounds for which they arenot suited. Also, consideration should be

given to availability of disposal capacityfor the different classes ofdecommissioning wastes. In particular,long lived activation products, such asNi-59 or Nb-94, should not be classifledas low-level waste nor buried at LLWdisposal sites. Commenters suggestedthat long lived wastes and wastescontaining Intense emitters be classifiedas high level waste. Also "Intermedlatelevel' wastes containing long livedIsotopes should not be buried In low-level waste disposal sites. Concern wasexpressed by four commenters thatwithout availability of disposal capacitythere could be problems with carryingout decommissioning. In particular lackof high-level waste sites could causeproblems.

In response to these comments Itshould be noted that criteria for wastesneeding to be disposed of at the time ofdecommissioning are contained Inexisting regulations and are beyond thescope of this rulemaking action.Disposal of spent fuel will be viageologic repository pursuant torequirements set forth in NRC'sregulation 10 CFR Part s0. Disposal oflow-level wastes is covered underNRC's regulatforflO CFR Part 81.Because low-level wastes cover a widerange In radlonuclide types andactivities, 10 CFR Part el Includes awaste classification system thatestablishes three classes of wastegenerally suitable for near-surfacedisposal: Class A, Class B, and Class C.This classification system provides forsuccessively stricter disposalrequirements so that the potential risksfrom disposal of each class of waste areessentially equivalent to one another. InarticularI the classification systemmits to safe levels the concentrations

of both short- and long-livedradionuclides of concern to low-levelwaste disposal. The radionuclidesconsidered In the waste classificationsystem of Id CFR Part e1 Include long.lived activation products such as NI-O9or Nb-84, as well as"Intense emitters"such as Co-eO.

Wastes exceeding Class C limits areconsidered to be not generally suitablefor near-surface disposal, and thosesmall quantities currently beinggenerated are being safely storedpending development of disposalcapacity. The Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Policy Amendments Act of 1985(Pub. L 99-40 approved January 16,19, 99 Stat. 1842) provides thatdisposal of wastes exceeding Class Cconcentrations Is the responsibility ofthe Federal government These wastesmay be considered to basically

*correspondto the "Intermediate-waste"designation suggested by commenters.

As far as decommissioning-wastes areconcernied, technical studies coupledwith practical experience fromdecommissioning of small reactor unitsindicate that wastes from futuredecommIssionIngs of large povwerreactors will have very similar physicaland radiological characteristics to thosecurrently being generated from reactoroperations. Two of the studiesperformed by NRC Include NUREC/CR-0130. Addendum 3, (Ref. 2) and NUJREG/CR-0872, Addendum 2, (Ref. 3) whichspecifically address classification ofwastes from decommissioninglargepressurized water reactor (PWR) andlarge boiling water reactor (BWR)nuclear power stations.These studiesindicate that the classification of low-level decommissioning wastes frompower reactors will be roughly asfollows:

mW9 aWRWaste da (Voum (Volume

Pp cn) pe e tA 98.0 97.5D__12 ' 2.0C_0.1 0.3Abos C 0.7 0.2

As shown, the great majority of thewaste volume from decommissioningwill be classified as Class A waste.Only a small fraction of the wastes willexceed Class C limits.

Transportation of decommissioningwastes will Involve no additionaltechnical considerations beyond thosefor transportation of existing radioactivematerial. Existing regulations coveringtransportation of radioactive materialare covered under NRC regulations In 10CFR Parts 20.71. and 73, andDepartment of Transportationregulations in 49 CFR Parts 170-189.

Disposal capacity for Class A, ClassB. and Class C wastes currently exists.Development of new disposal capacityunder the State compacting process Iscovered under the Low-LevelRadloactive Waste Policy AmendmentsAct referenced above. This Act providesfor incentives for development of suchcapacity, as well as penalties for failureto develop such capacity. NRC staffexpects that Congress will provideguidarice for development of disposalcapacity for wastes exceeding Class Cconcentrations. For spent fuel, whichalthough not Included as adecommissioning activity couldnevertheless Impact on'thedecommtissloning schedule, h detailedschedule for development of monitored


Federal R1glster / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June -27, 1988 / Rules and Rdgulations 24041;_ .~N -

retrievable storage and geologicdisposal capacity Is provided in fieNuclear Waste Policy Act of 182.

Licensees will have to assess thesituation with regard to waste disposalas part of the decommissioning planvhich they submit according to therequirements of 10 CFR 30.36. 40.SI2,50.82, 70.38 and 72.38. In addition, therule amendments require that at ora bout five years prior to the proje ctedend of operation, each reactor licenseesubmit a preliminary decommissiningFIan containing a cost estimate fcrc ecommissioning and an up-to-de teassessment of the actions 'necessary forDecommissioning. The SupplementaryInformation of the proposed rulei cdicated that this requirement woulda ssure that consideration be give t torelevatnt, up-to-date Information whichcould be important to adequate planningand funding for decommissioninq welloefore decommissioning actually begins.

These considerations Include ana ssessment of the current wastedisposal conditions. If for any reE sondisposal capacity for decoffmissioningwastes were unavailable, there areProvisions in i 50.82 to allow delay in.completion of decommissioning which* would permit temporary safe storage ofclecommissioning waste. In addit on,1 50.82 contains requirements to Unsurethat adequate funding is avallable forcompletion of delayed decommissioning.

The Supplementary Informallol to theproposed rule Indicated that the DECONdecommissioning alternative assumesa vailability of capacity to dispos 3 ofwaste. Alternative methods ofdecommissioning are available includingdelay In completion of decommisstoningduring which time there can be st oragecf wastes Delay In decommissio ilngcan result In a reduction of occu; ationalclose and waste volume due toradioactive decay.TPIRG el al) Petition for Rulemaking8D)ocket No. PRM-50-22

On July 5. 1977, as supplementedOctober 7, 1977, and January 3, 1!378 thePublic Interest Research Group (PIRG),drizonans for Safe Energy, Citiz nsUnited Against RadioactiveEnvironment, Community ActionJteiearch Group, Critical Mass EniergyProJect, Environmental Actionfoundation, Environmental Action, Inc.,flew Mexico Public Interest Rese archGroup. New York Public Interestitesearch Groutp, North AnnaEnvironmental Coalition, Texas PublicInterest Research Group, and National.C onsumer Law Center Energy Project(hereinafter the "petitioners"),petftiloned the Commission to Initiaterulemaking to promulgate regula ilons for

nuclear power plant decommissioningwhich would require plant operators topost bonds, to be hold In escrow, toensure that funds would be available forproper and adequate Isolation ofradioactive material upon each plant'sdecommissioning.

?On June 22,1979. the Commissionpublished In the Federal Register (44 IFR3B5Z3) a partial denial of the petitioners'request. In this notice the CommissIonspecifically denied the petitioners'request to Immediately Initiaterulemaking to Imploment a specificdecommissioning funding plan thatwould require nuclear power plant'operators to post surety bonds to coverdecommissioningic oats. TheCommission granted the petitioners'request to reconsider the adequacy of itsregulations on decommissioning. TheCommission indicated that other Issuesand funding alternatives raised by thepetitidners would be considered withinthe cohtext of the NRC decommissioningrulemaking proceedings.

In addition to surety bonds, thepetitioners advanced two other optionsto finance nuclear power reactordecommissioning: 11) Funds In anamount sufficlent to pay for projecteddecommissioning would be set aside Inan escrow account before commencingreactor operations, and (2) funds wouldbe accumulated in a sinking fund duringth6 life of the plant supplemented by asurety arrangement as necessary toallow for the risk of a licensed utilitygoing bankrupt before the iinking fundhad accumulated sufficient funds. Thepetitioners Indicated that therequirements should apply to existinglicensees as well as future licensees.The petitioners also raised the Issue ofthe Commission's juilsdiction to regulatethe arrahgements or decommissioning.The original petitioners joined by others,submitted comments in response to theFederal Register notice (44 FR 36523,June 22,1979) These comments werereceived on November 21, 1979, Thecomments discussed NRC's jurisdictionto promulgate-ruleii mandating specificrequirements covering decommissioningcosts, the 1eed for NRC to establish arule requiring Its licensees to makespecific financial polans to meetdecommissioning costs, surety bonds asa supplementary option, and thedisadvantage of unfunded alternatives.

The PIRG petiticn and the petitioners'supplementary comments wereconsidered In the development of thisrule. The Commipelon agrees that Itsregulations should be amended torequire that licens3es plan fordecommissioning end providereasonable assurance that funds will be

available to cover decommissioningcosts when needed. For reasonsdiscussed In the previous sections, theCommission does not believe It Isnecessary, or desirable, to require aspecific financial method for collectingdecommissioning funds beyond thelisting In the modlfled proposed rule.The amendments hequite licensees tosubmit a report indicating the level of'funding and the funding method forassuring that funds will be available fordecommissioning. Acceptable methodsare indicated In the amendmentle Thisprocedure covers all applicants foroperating licenses and existing licenseesunder Part 50o To the extent that thepetitioners would require promulgationof a specific method for financing powerreactor decommissioning, the petition isdenied. To the extent that the proposedamendments would allow considerationof the petitioners' suggested financingmethods, Including surety bonds Ir theyare available, the petition is granted.This action completes NRCconsideration of the Issues raised InPRM-5G-22.References

1. Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy onDecommiusloning of Nuclear Facilities,NU REC-0436, Revision 1. U.& NuclearRegqlatory Commission, December 1978. andSupplement 1t July 1980 and Supplement 2.March 198.

2. RI. Smith, G.J1Konzek. and WE.Kennedy, Jr. Technologj. Safety, and Costsof Decommissioning a Reference.PressurizedWaterRebctorPower Statlon. NUREC/CR-0130, Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, June 1978. Addendum 12 August1979 Addendum 2, July.1983, Addendum 3,September 1984U and Addendum 4 (To BePublished).3. H.D. Oak et e;, Technology, Safety; and

* Costs of Decommisloning a ReferenceBoiling WoterReoctor Power Station.NUREC/CR OO72 Prepared by PacificNorthwest Laboratory for the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, lune 980Addendum 1, July 83, Addendum 2,September 194, end Addendum S (To BePublished).

4. G.J. Konzek, Technology. Safety, andCosta of Decommssaloning Reference NuclearResearch and Teat Reactors, NUREG/CR-1758. prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, February 1982, and Addendum.July 2983.5. Norm G. Wittenbrock et el., Technology.

Safety, and Coats of Decomrnlaslonkng LightWater Reactors at a Multiple ReactorStation, NURECGCR-1765, prepared byPacific Northwest l aboretory for the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January1982.

0. EBlmelt B. Moore, Jr., Facilitation ofDecommulwoning of LIghi WaterReactor,.NUREG/CR-0M, Pacific Northwest

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24041 i988:.


Laboratory for. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. December1979.

7. EIS. Murphy, Technology Safety, andCosts of Docommlnsulnn14 Reference LigPtWater Reactors Following AccidentsNUREG/CR-2eot, Prepared by PacificNorthweat Laboratory for the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, November 1982.

8. K.J. Schneider end CE Jenkins,Technology Safety, and Costs ofDecomnmlsanlng a Refersnce udlear FuelReprocensing Plant.~ NUREC Preparedby Pacific Nortbwert Laboratory for US.Nudlear Regulatory Cormmisson. October1977.

9. H.R. Eider and DY. Blahnik. Technology.Safety, and Coats offOecommigsJoning aReference Urmnlum Fuel Fabrication Plant,NUREC/CR-12ft Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. October 190. 1 H. R. Elder. Technofhgy, Safetly, and

Cost, of Decommiseloning a ReferenceUranium Hexafluoride Conversion Plant.NUREG/CR-1757, Prepared by PacificNorthwest Laboratory for US. NuclearRegulatory Commission. October 191.

11. CE. Jenkins. ES. Murphy, and K.J.Schneider. Technology. Safety, and Costs ofDecommissioning a Reference Small MiredOxide Fuel Fabrication Plant NUREC/CR-0129. Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryConurdsslon. February 1979.

1. E.S. Murphy. Technology, Safety; andCost. of DecomnlsslonLiu Referenep Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclecr Facilities. NUREG/CR-1754, Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommislson. February 191.

13. I.D. Ludwick and LB. Moore,Technology. Safely and Costs ofDecommissioning Reference IndependentSpent Fuel Slorage Lnstallations. NUREC/CR-2210. Prepared by Paecifit NorthwestLaboratory for the US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. January 1984.

14. Robert S. Wood. Assuring the,Availability of Funds for DecommissioningNuclear Facilities Draft Report. NUREG-0584, Revision 3, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommIsslon. March 10t3.

15. Financing Strotg lea For Nucleor PowerPlant Decommisslonlng NUREC/CR-14 1,Prepared by Temple, Barker, and Sloan, Inc.,for the New England Conference of PublicUtilities Commissioners, Inc. for U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, July 1980.

16. P. L Chernick et al.. Design, Costs andAcceptability of on Electric Utility PoolforAssuring the Adequacy of Funds forNuclearPower Plant Decommissioning Expense.NUREG/CR-2370, Prepared by Analysis andInference, Inc.. for U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. December 198i.

17. C. F. Holoway and 1. Witherspoon,Monitoring for Compliance withDecommissioning.Termination SurveyCriteria, NUPREC/CR-Z=82, Prepared by OakRidge National laboratory for the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory CommissIon, June 1981.

15.1. 1. Siegel, Utility Financial Stabilityand the A vailability of Funds forDecommnssionf*ng NUREC/CR-3e9,Prepared by Engineering and gionomicsResearch, Inc.. for the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory CommissIon, September 1984 andSupplement 1, (To Ba Pubilished).

19. 1. P. Witherspoon. Technologyand Costof Termination Surveys Associated WithDecommnlsuloning of Nuclear Facilities,NURECICR-2241, Prepared by Oak RidgeNa tronal Laboratory for U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, lanuary 1982.

20. Draft Cenerc EnvirnmentolImpactStatement on Decammissioning NuclearFacifties, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommslosion NUREG-0588, January 2951. andFinal Generic Environmental ImpactStatement on Decommissioning NuclearFocilitie. US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. NUREC058. (To BePublished).

2. H. K Elder, Technology, SafetyandCosta ofDoecommilulanlng Reference NuclearFuel Cycle and Non-Fuel Cycle FacilitiesFollowing PostulatedAccidents. NUREG/CR4293. Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for the US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. May 1985.

22. HL K Elder, Technology, SofetlyandCost. of ecommistonlng Reference NuclearFuel Cycle Facilities, NUREG(CR-4519,Prepared by: Pacfic Nortiwest Laboratory forthe U.Y. Nuclear Regulaetry Commission..'May 1985.

23. 1. C. Evans et aL. Long-LivedActivationProducts In Reactor Materials. NUREG/CR-3474. Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. August 1984.

24 C. H. Abet et al., Residual RadionuclideContamination Within andAroundComearcialfNclear PaowerPlants, NUREC/CR-4289. Prepared by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for the US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. February 198&

25. T. S. LaGuardia and I. F. Risley.Identificatlon and Evaluation of FacilitationTechniques for Decommlssioning LightWaterPawer Reoctor, NUREG/CR-3587,Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc. for theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June1986.

28. Summary. Analysis, and Response toPublic Comments on Proposed'Amendmentson Decommissioning Criteria for NuclearFacilities, NUREG-1221, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, (To Be Published);

27. Report on Waste Buried Charges,NUREG-1307, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, (To Be Published].

Draft copies of reference Items 18, 20,28, and 27 and of Addendum 4 ofReference 2 and Addendum 3 ofReference 3 are available for Inspectionand/or copying for a fee in the NRCPublic Document Room, 1717 H StreetNW,, Washington, DC 20555. TheseItems are to be published In the nearfuture as NUREGs: After publication,these Items will also be made availablethrough the U.S. Government PrintingOffice and the National TechnicalInformation Service.

Copies of all other referenceddocuments may be purchased Throughthe U.S. Government Printing Office bycalling 1202) 275-2060 or by writing t'°the U.S. Govemment Printing Offce.

P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchasedfrom the National Technical InformationService, U.S. Department of Commerce,5Z85 Port Royal Road. Springfield, VA22181. A copy Is available for Inspectionor copying for a fee In the NRC PublicDocument Rdoomn 1717 H Street NW.,Washington DC 20555

Environmental Impact Statement:Availability

As required by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 196g asamended, and the Co'mmisslonosregulations In 10 CFR Part 51. the NRChas prepared a flnalwgeneric-environmental Impact statement on thedecommissfoning of nuclear facilities.

A draft of the final genericenvironmental Impact statement(FGEiS) is available for inspection and/'or copying fdr a fee In the NRC PublicDocumenl Room, 1717 H Street NW.,Washington, DC 20555. The FGEIS Is tobe published in the near future as aNUREG. After publicatlon. the FGEISwill also be available by purchase fromthe U.S. Government PrinUng Office bycalling (202) 275-2060 or by writing tothe U.S. Government Printing OfficeP.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchasedfrom the National Technical InformationService, U.S. Department of Commerce,5285 Port Royal Road' Springfield. VA22181.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

' This final rule amends Informationcollection requirements that are subjectto the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Theserequirements were approved by theOffice of Management and Budget underapproval numbers: Part 30-3150-07;Part 40-3150-0020; Part 503150-0011;Part 70-3150-0009; and Part 72-3150-0132.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared aregulatory analysis on this finalregulation.The analysis examines thecosts and benefits of the alternativesconsidered by the Commission. Theanalysts Is available for Inspection inthe NRC Public Document Room. 1717 HStreet NW., Washington. DC. Singlecopies of the analysis may be obtainedfrom C.. eldman, or F. Cardile. Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research. U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Washington. DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3883.


Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988e Rules and Regulations - 24043- -

Regulatory Flexibility Analysid recordkeeping would tend to be-' Backflt AnalysisAs required by the Regulatory recouped eiher In operation or at The Commission-has determined, on

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 805(b), decommissioning.ile NRC has carefully considered the' The changes contained in this rule at the basis of the record In thiseffecl on small entities In devep e the time of terminaIon of license affect rulemaking, that the backfits which willfinalorule ande hasl attepoed ter the fewsmall enttles. Thes changes be Imposed as a result of this rule are

fialruloead ehangs athemruled tlo atetieueorlcnes iey ors Irom andcprov tha ensure the aequaigte s

reequirments to reduce the inpac Ion consist primarily of specifying in more nreyec t o ene a ua edetail contents of decommissioning rtcon of public health and safety.small entities to the extent possible Therefore,dunder section (a)(3) of thewhile adeqrately protecting health and w plans, presently calleilspfety. "decontamination rlans" In 10 CFRiz o backait rule, .10 CFR i0.109, neither a

Based vron sthes inofrmio)nd Pvairtb Parts 30,a40, and 70. Although more backfit analysis nor application of theIs not expected that this rule will, have a detailed plans may be required thansinIcn p x ec ono imp lct n ave beep considered acceptable n-the required for this rule. The regulatorysubestantial number of smell entitles. The past, there will alSc be a reduction InrAle broadly affests all Commission administrative effoet because there will constitutes the documented evaluationapplicants and licensees and, because beliess uncertainty as to What Is required by section ()(4) of the backfitagreement Statesmwll bentleqund l toh expectedsOverall, these changes are not rule. This analysis contains theArientint compatie willie wthqu 1th expected to have a significant impact. objecives ofr and reasonsfor, theooszed changes, terulen e alo bThe most s cant Impact of this backfitt entailed by these amendments

Agreement State applicants and r u ale on license is likely to result from preves Ineaipor cm that.llcensthe f onancial assurence refuirements A these backfits are necessary to ensurea cot esimat fordecommissioning and a adequate protection to public health and

C boutmson licensees whic binlu s method of providing assurance of funds safety:eane bouts s,20 byproduct3, ,0 matria licnse for decomnmissionrirg will be ii~tifred of,' Ust of Subjectslcse u nde r Part ltru 34, 4s00 tdc ureroIughly 830 Commission licensees oflicenses Fo der Part35,400 psoucen which few if any will be small entities. 10 CPR Paort smaterial licenses under Part 40, 200 Rotighly another Bo0 Commissionproduction and utilization licenses licensees Including about 2r 0 small Byproduct material, Government(including approximately 50 applications entities will Ne the opion of providingo contracts. Intergovernmental relations,

*n various stages of review) undei Part fisancial assurances in a presdtbed Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Penalty,50,. 700 special nuclear material linenses o ttin% a thface to. Radiation protection r Reporting andunder Part 70. and I license and tamatefco submitting a citfdination recdrdkeeping requirements.up proximatqly 5potential applicants to, Support a lower a3mount. A'slmiar 1O.CFR Part 40u nder Part 72. Between 11,000 and 12,00 number of Agreemont State licenseesAgreement States' licensees are also would also be affected. Those small Government contractsanHazardousa lfected. esiartles affected Would be ammosi materials-transportatirns Nuclear

The Commission estimates thai exclusively Indrstrial licensetsf. Because materials, Penalty, Reporting anda pproximaltely 40 percent of Its licensees the historical inrormation indicates that recordkeepig requirements, Sourceare considered small entities und ir the small Industrial licensees are, themost material, Uranium.racently adopted NRC size standards (51 likely to default, It Is particularly 10 Cm R Part 50FR 50241; December 9,t 9M).The NRC Important that financial assurance besize standards-for entities to be provided by these licensees. The rule Antitrust. Classified Information, Firecrnsidered as small businesses a:e as lt allows as much flehdbility as pobible to prevention, Incorporation by reference,folIows. . licensees for providing financial Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

* For most licensees, annual billings assurance, In ordes to reduce the impact power plant. and reactors, Penalty.or s3.5 million or less Also, theeconomic impict of making Radiation protection, Reactor siting

'.For private practice physicianis. cost estimates can be reduced by using criteria, Reporting and recordkeepinga nnual billing of $1 million or test; the data base which has been .. requirements.

.. For State or public education developed.... .ip )rt5institutions, the Institution i's iupiported 'The cost of thia-requireiment dependsby a Jurisdiction with a population of on the inithod used.`A surety o . Administrative practice and50,000 or less insurance method 1i likely-to be bsed'bY- procedure. Environmental'impact

* For other educational Institutions, small entities; It is estimated to cost statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclearthe Institution has 500 or fewer approxlindtelv I to 2% of the fai~e value,; power plants and reactors., Reportingemnployees' . or 11~2% of decommissioning Costs -. and recordkeeping requirements.Licensees under 10 CFR PartasO1 und 72 .annually, plus the tidministrative cost of 1o CFA part'are not considered small entities. either develojping a. cost estimate and R.r7

All licensees Including small er~tIties reporting on the funding methods to Hazardous materials.-transportation,w-Ill be required to keep records NRC or of making a certification. The Nuclear materials, Packaging landfraportant.to decommissioning. In cost of a surety using the prescribed containers, Penalty, Radiationgianeral. for small licensees, such amounts proposed In the rule would thus protection, Reporting and recordkeepingrccordkeeping Is "good practice" and be in the range of 16"0-1,000 per year. requirements, Scientific equipment,ahould not constitute a significan: For a few small entities affected this Security measures, Specilalnuclearchange in operation. Generally, k eping would be a significant economic impact, material.records Important to decommissionin however, thiese cat as would present the IO CFR Part 72'roduces both the costs and health and~ highest risk of default.safety Impacts of decommissioning and A more detailed analysis of Impacts to ,Manpower training programs, NuclearCan also result In savings In dose ior small entities Is Included In the .materials, Occupational safety andcosts duringoperation. Costs of Regulatory Analysis. health, Reporting and recordkeeping

S

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24043 1988...

24044 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27,19881 Rules and Regulations..:.. ..'

requirements, Security measures, Spentfuel.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble and under the authority of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,as amended, and 5 U.S.C 552 and 653,the NRC is adoptingthe followingamendments to 10 CFR Parts 30,40, 50,5, 70, and 72.

PART 30-RULES OF GENERALAPPLICABILITY TO DOMESTICLICENSING OF BYPRODUCTMATERIAL

1. The authority citation for Part 3) Isrevised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 81, 82,o , 182, 18i,1 8, e68Slat. 935. 9 953, O4, 95. as amended, sec.234,13 Stat. 444,u amended (4Z U.S.C 2111,2112. 2201. 223 233,2238,2282); secs. 21,as amended, 202. 20o88 Slat 124Z, asamended, 12u44,146 (42 U.S.C.5841. 5842,58s).

Section 30.7 also Issued under Pub. L' -601, sec. 10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851. -Section 30.34(b) also issued under jec. 284. 68SlaL 954. as amended (42 U.S.C.22341.Section 30.1 al*o issued under sec. 187.68Stat. 955 (4Z U.S.r 223).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 8 Slat. 958, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2273). II 30.3.30.34(b)and (c), 30.41 (a) and (c), and 30.53 are Issuedunder sc lelb, 68 Slat. 948. as amended (42U.S.C. 2201(b)): and It 30.C 30.9.30.38 0.51.30.52, 30.55,'and 3a0. (b) and (c) are issuedunder sec. 1elo, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42U.S.C. 2201(9)).

2. Section 30.4 Is amended by adding anew paragraph (aa) to read as follows:

I 30.4 Definitions* * * * .

(aa) "Decommission" means toremove (as a facility) safely from serviceand reduce residual radioactivity to alevel that permits release of the propertyfor unrestricted use and termination oflicense.

3. Section 30.32 is amended by addinga new paragraph (h) to read as follows:

130.32 Application for specific llcenses.0 O* . . * *

(h) As provided by 1 30.35, certainapplications for specific licenses filedunder this part and Parts 82 through 85of this chapter must cbntain a proposeddecommissioning funding plan or acertification of financial assurance fordecommissloning. In the case-of renewalapplications submitted before July 27,1990, this submittal may follow therenewal application but must besubmitted on or before July 27, ?990.

4. A new 5 30.85 Is added to read asfollows:

1 30.35 FInancial aurance endrecortkeoping for decommissioning.

(a) Each applicant for a specificlicense authorizing the possession anduse orunseleled byproduct material ofhalf-life greater than 120 days and In .quantities exceeding 10 6 times theapplicable quantities set forth inAppendix C to 10 CfR Part 20 shallsubmit a decommissioning funding planas described In paragraph (e) of thissection.The decommissioning fundingplan must also be submitted when acombination of Isotopes Is Involved if Rdivided by 10 ' Is greater tban I (unityrule), where R Is defined here as the sumof the ratios of the quantity of eachIsotope to the applicable value InAppendix C.

(bl Bach applicant for a specificlicense authorizing possession and useof byproduct material of half-life greaterthan 120 days and in quantitles specifiedIn paragraph (d) of this section shalleither-

(1) Submit a decommissioning fundingplan as described In paragraph (a) ofthis sectlon; or

(2) Submit a certification thatfinancial assurance for decommissIoninghas been provided in the amountprescribed by paragraph [d) of thissection using one of the methodsdescribed in paragraph (1) of thissection. For an applicant thiscertification may state that theappropriate assurance will be obtainedafter the application has been approvedand the license Issued but prior to thereceipt of licensed material. As part ofthe certification, a copy of the financialInstrument obtained to satisfy therequirements of paragraph (f) of thissection Is to be submitted to NRC.

(c) (1) Each holder of a specific licenseIssued on or aflter July 27, 9W0 which Isof a type described in paragraph (a) or(b) of this section. shall providefinancial assurance for decommissioningIn accordance with the criteria set forthIn this section.

(2) Each holder of a specific licens6Issued before July 27,1990, and of a typedescribed in paragraph (a) of thissection shall submit, on or before July27, 1990, a decommissioning funding.plan or a certification of financialassurance for decommissioning in anamount at least equal to $750,000 inaccordance with the criteria set forth Inthis section. If the lcensee submits thecertification of financial assurancerather than a decommissioning fundingplan at this time, the licensee shallinclude a decommissloning funding planIn any application for license renewal.

(3) Each holder of a specific licenseIssued before July 27, 10, and of a typedescribed In paragraph (b) of this

section shall submit, on or before July27, 1990, a certification of financialassurance for decommissioning or adecommissioning funding plan inaccordance with the criterla set forth inthis section.

(d) Table of required amounts offinancial assurance for decommissioningby quantity of material.

greater than 10' but less than orequal to 10' times the applica-ble quantities of Appendix C ofPart 20 In unsealed form. (For acombination of Isotopes, if R. asdefined la. 305(a). divided, by

10 is greater than 1 but R d-vided by 10 Is less than orequal to ....... S750D000

greeter then 10 but less than orequal to 10' times the applica.-ble quantitles of Appendix C orPart 20 In unseated form. (For acombination of Isotopes, If R asdefined In 1 30.35(a), divided by10 is pester than 1 but R di.vided by 104 Is less than orequal to . . S1500ow

greater than 10" times the appli-cable quantities of Appendix Cof Part 20 in sealed sources orplated foils. (For a combinationof isotopes, if R. as defined in1 3035(a), divided by 10 ° Isgreater than 1). . S75o000

(e) Each decommissioning fundingplan must contain a cost estimate fordecommissioning and a description ofthe method of assuring funds fordecommissioning from paragraph (f) ofthis section. including means ofadjusting cost estimates and associatedfunding levels periodically over the lifeof the facility.

(f) Financial assurance fordecommissioning must be provided byone or more of the following methods:

(1) Prepayment. Prepayment Is thedeposit prIor to the start of operationinto an account segregated from licenseeassets and outside the licensee's'administrative control of cash or liquidassets such that the amount of fundswould be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs, Prepaymentmay be in the form of a trust, escrowaccount, government fund, certificate ofdeposit, or deposit of governmentsecurities.

.(2) A surety method, Insurance. orother guarantee method. These methodsguarantee that decommissioning costswill be paid should the liceffsee default.A sufty mnethod may be In the form of asurety bond, letter of credIt, or line ofcredit. A parent cotnpany guarantee offunds for decommissloning costs based

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 2404t4 1988 .

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 24045__

on afinancial teitmay be used if theguarantee and test are as contained InAppendix A to this part. A paren::company guarantee may not be used Incombination with other financialniethods to satisfy the requirements ofthis section. Any surety method c rinsurance used to provide financialassurance for decommissioning mustcontain the following conditions;

(I) The surely method or insurancenust be open-ended or, if written for aspecified term, such as five years, mustbe renewed automatically unless 90days or more prior-to the renewal date,the'issuer notifies the Commission, theBeneficiary, and the licensee of ItsIntentilork not to renew. The suret;ymethod or insurance must also pitovidet hat the full face amount be paid to thebeneficiary automatically prior ti theexpiration without proof of forfeiture ift:Ne licensee falls to provide areplacement acceptable to theCommission within 30 days after receiptcf notificatlon of cancellation.

(ii) The surety method or insurancemust be payable toa trust established.rfr decommissioning-coits. The trusteea nd trust Faust be acceptable to theCommission. An acceptable trusteeIn:cludes an appropriate. State or Federalgovernment agency or an entity whichfas the authority to act as a trustee andwhose trust operations are re~ulitedand examined by a Federal or State.agency.

(111) The surety method or instrancemust remain in effect until theCommission has terminated the license;(3) An external sinking fund in which

ciepbslts are made at least annu lly,coupled with a surety method orI nsurance, the value of which me ydecrease by the amiount beingaccumulated in the sinking fund. Anexternal sinking fund Is a fundEstablished and maintained by sattingaside funds periodically In an accountEegregated from licensee assets undolutside the licensee's administrativecontrol in which the total amount 6ffunds would be sufficlent to paydecommissioning costs at the timetermination of operation is expented. Anexternal sinking fund maybe in he form(of a trust. escrow account, governmentlund, certificate of deposit. or deposit of11overmment securities. The surely orInsurance provisions must be as statedIn paragraph (f)(2) of this sectior.

(4) In the case of Federal, Stat , orlocal govemnent licensees, a statementof intent containing a cost estimate fordecommissioning or an amount basedon the Table In paragraph (d) of thisiveption, and indicating that funds fordecommissioning will be obtainind When,necesanry.

" (8) Each person Licensed under thispart or Parts 32through 35 of thischapter shall keep irecords ofInformation Important to the safe andeffective decommis sioning of the facilityin an Indentiflied location until thelicense Is terminated by theCommission. If records of relevantinformation are kept for other purposes,reference to these records and theirlocations may be used. Information theCommission considers important todecommissloning consists of-

(1) Records of spills or other unusualoccurrences Involving the spread ofcontamination in and around thefacility equipment. or sfte. .Theserecords may be lmited lo Instanceswhen contamination remains after anycleanup procedure, or when there isreasonable likelihood that contaminantsmay have spread to inaccessible areasas In the case of pcissible seepage intoporous materials such as concrete.These records must Include any knownInformation on identification of Involvednuclides, quantitles, forms, andconcentrations.

(2)As-built drawings andtiodificatlone of structures andequipment in restricted areas whereradioactive mater 31s are used and/orstored. andtof locations of posidbleInaccessible contamination such asburied pipes which may be subject tocontamination. If required drawings arereferenced, each relevant documentheed not be indexed Individually. Ifdrawings are not available, the licenseeshall substitute appropriate records ofavailable information concerning theseareas and locations.

(3) Records bf the cost estimateperformed for the decommissioningfunding plan or of the amount certifiedfor decommissioning, and records of thefunding method used for assuring fundsif either a funding plan or ceriflcation Isused.

5. Section 30.30 is revised to read asfollows:I 30.3 ExpItiUon and termination oflitens.

(a) Except as provided In I P0.37(b)and paragraph (e) of this section, eachspecific license expires at the end of theday, In the month and year stated In thelicense.

(b) Each licensee shall notify theCommission promptly, In writing underI 30.8, and request termination of the

'license when the licensee decides toterminate all activities Involvingmaterials authorized under the license.Thlb notification and request fortermination of the license must Includethe reports and Inrormationspecined inparagraphs {c)(1).1Ivj and (v) of this

section and a plan for completion ofdecommissioning if required byparagraph (c)(2) of this section or bylicense condition.

(c)(t) If a licensee does not submit anapplication for license renewal underJ 30.37, the licensee shall on or beforethe expiration date specified in thelicense-

([) Terminate use of byproductmaterial;

(11) Remove radioactive contaminationto the extent practicable except forthose procedures covered by paragraph(c)(2)(i) of this section;

(Ii) Properly dispose of byproductmaterial;

(iv) Submit a completed form NRC-314, which certifies informationconcerning the disposition of materials;and

(v) Conduct a radialion survey of thepremises where the licensed activitieswere carried out and submit a report ofthe results of this survey, unless thelicensee demonstrates that the premisesare suitable foi release for unrestricteduse In some other manner. The licenseeshall, as'appropriate-

(A) Report levels of radiation In unitsof microrads per hour of beta andgamma radiation at one centimeter andgamma radiation at one meter fromsurfaces, and report levels ofradioactivity, Including alpha, In units ofdisintegrations per minute (ormicrocuries) per 100 square centimetersirmovable and fixed for surfaces,microcuries per milliliter for water, andpicocuries per gram for solids such assoils or concrete; and

(B) Specify the survey instrument(s)used and certify that each Instrument isproperly calibrated and tested.

(2)(1) In addition to the Informatlonrequired under paragraphs (cJ(1)(iv) and(v) of this iSection. the licensee shallsubmit a plan for completion ofdecommissioning If the proceduresnecessary to carry out decommissioninghave not been previously approved bythe NRC and could Increase potentialhealth and safety Impacts to workers orto the public such as In any of thefollowing cases:

(A) Procedures would Involvetechniques-not applied routinely duringcleanup or maintenance operations; or

(B) Workers would be entering areasnot normally occupied where surfacecontamination and radiation levels are..significantly higher than routinelyencountered during operation; or

(C) Procedures could result Insignificantly greater airborneconcentrations of radioactive materials-than.are present during-operation: or..

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24045 1988..

24046 Federal Register /. Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June. 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

(D) Procedures could result Insignificantly greater releases ofradioactive material to the environmentthan those a8sQclated with operation.

(i) Procedures wilt potential healthand safety impacts msy not be cirrledout prior to approval of thedecommlisloning plan.

(111) The proposed decommissioningplan, If required by paragraph (c)(2)(1) ofthis section or by license conditon mustInclude-

(A) Description of planneddecommiussIoning activities:

(iB)Description of methods used tdassure protection of workers and theenvironment against radiation hazardsduring decommissioning;

(C) A description of the planned finalradiation survey; and

(D) An updated detailed cost'estimatefor decommissioning. comparison of thatestimate with present funds set aside fordecommilsloning and plan for assuring'the availability of adequate funds forcompletion of decommissioning.

(Iv) The proposed decommissioningplan will be a pproved by theCommission If the Information thereindemonstrates, that the decommissioningwill be completed as soon as isreasonable and that the health andsafety of workers and the public will beadequately protected.

(3) Upon approval of thedecommissioning plan by theCommission, the licensee shall completedecommissloning In accordance with theapproved plan. As a final step Indecommissioning, theilicensee shallagiln'submit the Information required Inparagraph (c)(1)(v) of this section andshall certify the disposilion ofaccumulated wastes fromdecommissioning.

(d) If the information submitted underparagraphs (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of thissection does not adequatelydemdnstrate that the premises aresuitable for release for unrdstrlcted use,the Commission will inform 4he licenseeof the-appropriate further actionsrequired for termination of license.

(a) Each speciflo license continues Ineffect, beyond the expiration date Ifnecessary, with respect to possession ofresidual byproduct material present ascontamination until the Commissionnotifies the licensee in writing that thelicense Is terminated. During this time,the licensee ihall-

(1) Limit actions Involving byproductmaterial to those related todecommissioning. and

(2) Continue to coptrol entry to'.restricted areas unill they are suitablefor release for unrestricted use and theCommislionnotifies the licensee in,writing that the license Is terminated.

(f) Specific licenses will be terminatedby writen notice to the licensee whenthe Commisslon determines that-

(1) Byproduct material has beenproperly disposed;

(2) Reasonable qffort has been-madeto eliminate residual radioactive.contamination, If present; and

(3)(i) A radiation survey has beenpirformed which demonstrates that thepremises are suitable for release forurrestricted use; or

*(11) Other Information submitted bythe licensee is sufficient to demonstratethat the premises are suitable for releasefor unrestricted use.

6. A new Appendix A Is added to Part30 to read as follows:Appendix A--Criteria Relating to Use ofFinenclal Tests and Parent CompanyGuaranoees for Providing Reasonable

,Assurance of Funds forDecommIssioning1. Introductlon

An applicant or licensee may providereasonable assurance of the availability offunds for decommissioning based ohobtaining a parent company guarantee thatfunds willtbe available for decommissioningcosts and oh a demonstration that the parentcompany passes a flnaiclal test. Thisappendix establishes criteria for passing thefinancial test and for obtaining the parentcompany guarantee.11. Financial Test

A. To pass the financial teet, the parentcompany must meet the criteria of eitherparagraph A.1 or A.2 of this section:

l.The parent dompany must have:(I) Two of the following three ratios: A

ratio of total liabilities to net worth less than2.0: a ratio of the sum of net Income plusdepreciation, depletion. ahd amortization tototal liabilities greater than 0.1; and a ratio ofcurrent assets to current liabilities greaterthan 1.; and

(ii) Net working capital and tangible networth each lat least six times the currentdecommissioning cost estimates (orprescribed amount If a certification Is used);and

(lil) Tangible net worth of at leart $10million; and

(iv) Asset located In the United Statesamounting to at least 90 percent of totalaelts or at feast six imes the currentdecommssiloning cost estimates (orprescribed amount If a certification Is used).

2. The parent company must have:(1) A current rating for Its most recent bond

Issuance of AAA. AA. A, or BBB as Issued byStandard and Poor's or Aas, Aa. A. or Baa asissued by Moody's; and

(11) Tangible net worth at least six times thecurtent decommissioning cost estimate forOrescribed amount If a certification Is used);and

(111) Tangible net worth of at least $10mlilon:ind

(iv) Assets located In the United Statesamounting to al least 9o percent of total

assets or at least six times the currentdecommissioning cost estimates (orprescribed amount if certificallon Is used).

B. The parent company's Independent.certifled public accountant must havecompared the data used by-the parentcompany In the financial test, which Isderived from the independently audited. yearend financial statements for the latest fiscalyear. with the amounts In such financiallataeenL In connection with that procedure

the llenene shall Inform NRC wiihin 90 daysof any matters coming to the auditor'sailtentin which cause the auditor to believethat the data specified In the financial testshould be sdlusted and thetthe company-nolonger passes the test.

C. i After the Initial Rinanclal test, theparent company must repeat the passage ofthe test within g0 days after the close of eachsucceeding fiscal year.

2 If the patent company no longer meetsthe requirements of paragraph A of thissection. the licensee must send notice to theCommission of Intent to establish alternatefinancial assurance as specified Id theCommisslonte'regulallone. The notice must besent by certified mail within 90 days after theend of the fiscal year for which the year. endfinancial data show thai the parent companyno longer meets. the financial testrequirementi. The lichnsee must providealtemate financial essurance within'1zO dby.after the end of such fiscal year.IIL Perent Compony Cuarantoe

The terns.ot a parent company guaranteewhich an applicapt or licensee obtains must :provide that. ,

A.The parent company guarantee- willremain In force unless the gusrentor sendsnolea of cancellation by certified mail to thelicensee and the Cominiss!on..Cancellation.may not occur. however. durlng the. 120 daysbeginning on the date of recelpt.of the noticeof cancellatlion by blthtthe licensee and theCommission. as evldencd by the returnreceipts.

B. If the licensee iair to provide alternatefinancial essurance as specifled In the"'Commission's eegulatlions wlihin 90 dayiafter reqelpt by the licensee and Comnilsslonof a notice of cancellation of the parentcompany guarantee from thi guarantor. theguirantor will iiiovide such alternati'efinancial assurance in the name of thblicensee.

C. The parent company guarantee andflnancial lest provislone must remain in affectuntil the Commission has terminated thelicense.

D. If atrust is eelablished fordecommissioning costs, the trustee and trust'must be acceptable to the Commission. Anacceptable trustee Includes an appropriateState Or Federal Covernment agency Or anentity which has the authority to act as atrustee and whose trust operations areregulated and examined by a Federal or Stateagency.

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24046 1988 - -

- Federal Registeir I Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 1 Rules and Regulations 24047..a wm�� I

PART 40-DOIESTIC UCENSING OFSOURCE UATERIAL

7. The authority citation for Part 40 Is.rovised to.read as follows,:

Aulborltyr Ses 62, 63.8 , 68,61.161 181113, 188, 68 Sta t. 932. m, 935, 948, 953, 954,O0ti, as amended secs. m1e(z) 83. a4.lub. L9U-6O4, 92 Slat. t033, as amended, 03;. sec.234, 83 Slat. 444, as amended (42 U.3.t1ani(e)(21), 209, 2l83, 2094,2005, 2111,2113,21 14, 220, 2232,2233,223, 2282); sac 274,PAb. L 8-373,73 Stat. 688 (4Z U.S.C. :20);socs. 201, .s amended, 202, 20 88 Sut. 1242,a:u amended, 1244 124U (42 U.S.C. 564182,51340); sec. 278, I2 Slat. 3021, as qmendtd byPijb. L 97-415, St Slat. 2007 (42 US.C 2022).

Section 40.7 also Issued under Pub. 1. 95-80n, sec. 10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).S *ction 40.31 (gI also Issued under se.I12Z-68Stat. 939(42 U.SC. 2152). ScHon 40.4 lebsoissued undersec 284 58 Stat.954, asa mended (42 U.6.C, 2234). Section 40.11 alsoIs sued under sec. 127, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.;L

For the purposs of sec 223. 08 Stal.S58 asamended (42 U.S.C; 2273; ti40.3s, 40. 5(d)(1)-(n), 40.35(a)-d).40.41(b) and (c), 40.44'3.51() and (c), and 40.3 are Issued underiec. 18ib, e8 Stat.948. as amended, (42 U.Sc;2201(b)), and 140.5. 40. 40.28(c) (di(S), and('1), 4026(c)(2). 4 5(e), 40.42,40.81,441g.8243W.4, and 40.65 Ba Issued under sc I6lo, 68SWat 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. ZM1 o)).

8. Section 40.4 Is amended by adding anew paragraph (s) to read aa follows:

9 40.4 Definitons.* . . . .4

(a) "Decommission" means to iemrove(as a facility) sofely from service andreduce residual radioactivity to a levelthat permits release of the propelty forunrestricted use and termination ofl'icense..

9. Section 40.31 Is amended by iddinga new paragraph (p) to read as fo lows:

1 40.31 Applcaftona for specifi fhlma.4 * . . &

(I) As provided by I 4060, cert 31nIpplications for speciffc licenses filedunder this part must contain a'prsposeddecommissioning funding plan oi acertification of financial assuran:e fordecommissioning. In tha case or renewalapplications submitted before July 27,i990, this submittal may follow tierenewal application but must bea ubmltted on dr before july27, 1190.

10. A new 1'40.36 Is added to iaid asfollows:

1 40.36 Financial surance andrecordksepIng for decomaionin;.

Except for licenses authotuzinq thereceiptl possession, and use of soukennaterlal for uranlum or thorium milling.or byproduct matlerial-at sites foamerlynissociated with such milling. forwhichllnanclal assurance requirementa; bra setlorth in Appendix A of this part criteria

for providing financial assurance-fordecommissioning are as follo'Ws

(a) Each applicant for a specificlicense authorizing the possession and.use of more than 103 mCi of soutcematerlal-in a readil ' dispersible formshall submit a deconmissloning fundJigplan as described In paragraph (d) ofthis section.

(b) Each applicant for a specificllcenseaautholrizing possession and useof quantities of source material greaterthan 10 MCI but lests than or equal to 100mCI In a readily dispersible form shalleither-

(1) Submit a decammissioning fundingplan as described in paragraph (d) ofthis section; or

(Z) Submit a certification thatfinancial assurance for decommissioninghas been provided -in the amount of$150,000 using one of the methodsdescribed In paragraph (e) of thissection. For an applicant, Mtscertification may slale that theappropriate assurance will be obtainedafter the applicatiom has been approvedand the license Issued but prior to thereceipt of licensed itaterial As pdrt ofthe certification, a copy of the financialinstrument obtained to satisfy therequirements of pa:agraph (e).of thissection Is to be submitted to NRC.

(c) (1) Each holder of a specific licenseIssued on or after Jaly 27.190, which tocovered by paragrEaph (a) or (b) of thissectlon shall provide financialassurance for decommisslbnliig inaccordance with the criteria ept forth inthis section..

(2) Each holder cf a specific licenseIssued before July 27,190 and coveredby paragraph (a) of this section shallsubmit on or before July 27 1Q90. adecommissioning funding plan orcertification of financial assurance for

-.decommissloning In an amount at leastequal to $750,000 In accordance With tliecriteria set forth In this section. If thelicensee submits the certification offinancial assutancta rather than adecommissioning funding plan at thistime, the licensee shall iude adecommissioning funding plan in anyapplication for license renewalo

(3) Each holder of a specific licenseIssued before July 27. 190 and coveredby paragraph (b) of this section shallsubmit, on or before July 27,199 acertification of financiql assurance fordecommissioning or a decommissioningfunding plan In accordance with thecriteria set forth ia this sectlon-

(d).Each decommissloning fundingplan must contain a dost estimate fordecommissioning arid a descriptidn ofthemethod of assturIng funds forI decomtiloning Irom pare agrb (a) ofthis sectlon ricludilnp ineans of

adjusing cost 6ilmples anid associatedfunding ievels periodlcally oyer the lifeof the facility.

(e) Financial assurance fordecommissioning must be prpvided byone or-more of the following.methods:

Cl) Prepayment. Prepayment Is thedeposit prior to the start of operation-Into an account segregated from licenseeasiets and outside the licenbee's.administrative control of cash or liquidassets such that the amount of fundswould be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs. Prepaymentmay be In the forni of a trust escrowaccount, government fund, certificate ofdeposit or deposit of governmentsecurities.

(2) A surety methd, Insurance, orother guarantee method Tlese methodsguarantee thatldecommissioning costswill be paid should the licensee default.A surety method may be in the form of asurety bohd, letter of credit, or line ofcredit. Aparent company guarantee offunds for decommissioning costs basedon a financial test may be used If theguarantee and test are as contained inAppendix A of 10 CFR Part 30. A parentcomrany guarantee may not be used Incombination writh other financialmethods to satisfy the tequirements, ofthis section. Any surety method orinsurance used to provide financialassurance for decommissioning mustcontain the following conditions:

(I) The surety method or insurancemust be open-ended or, If written for aspecified term such as five years, mustbe renewed automatica9ly unless 90days ormore prior to the renewal date,the Issuer notfies the Commission, thebeneficlary, and the licensee of ItsIntention not to renew. The suretymethod or Insurance muqt also providethat the full face minouhtbe paid to thebeneficiary autoinatically pror to theexpiration without proof of forfeiture Ifthe licensee fails to provide areplacement acceptable to theCommission within 30 days after receiptof notification of cancellation.

(Ii) The surety method or insurancemust be payable to a trust establIshedfor decommissioning costs. The trusteeand trust must be acceptable to theCommisslon. Ari'acceptable trusteeincludes an appropriate State or Federalgovernment agency or an entity whichhas the authority to act as a trustee andwhboe trust operaions are regulated.and examined by a Federal or Stateagency.

(111) lbe surety method or Insurancemust remain hn effect until theCommisslon has terminated the license.

(3) An external ginking fund in which.deposits are made at least annually,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24047 1988 .


coupled with a surety method orInsurance, the value of which maydecrease by the amount beingaccumulated In the sinking fund. Anexternal sinking fund is a fund.established and maintained by settingaside funds periodically In an accountsegregated from licensee assets andoutside the licensee's administrativecontrol In which the total amount offunds would be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs at the timetermination of operation Is expected. Anexternal sinking fund may be in the formof a trust, escrow account governmentfund, certificate of deposit, or deposit ofgovernment securities. The surety orinsurance provision must be is stated inparagraph (e)(Z) of this section.

(4) In the case of Federal. State, orlocal government licensees, a statementof Intent containing a cost estimate fordecommissioning or an amount basedon paragraph (b) of this section, andIndicating that funds fordecommissioning will be obtained whennecessary.

(f)Each person licensed under this -part shall keep records of InformationImportant to the safe and effectivedecommissioning of the facility In anidentified location until the license Isterminated by the Commission. Ifrecords of relevant Information are keptfor other purposes, reference to these

-records and their locations may be usedInformation the Commission considersimportant to decomunissioning consistsof-

(1) Records of spills or other unusualoccurrences Involving the spread ofcontamination In and around thefacility, equipment. or site. Theserecords may be limited to Instanceswhen contamination remains after anycleanup procedures or when there Isreasonable likelihood that contaminantsmay have spread to inaccessible areasas In the case of possible seepage Intoporous materials such as concrete.These records must Include any knowninformation on Identification of involvecnuilides, quantities forms, andconcentrations.

(2) Asibuilt drawings andmodifications of structures andequipment.in restricted areas whereradioactive materials are used and/or:stored, and of locations of possibleinaccessible contamination such asburied pipes which may be subject tocontamination. If required dralWings arereferenced, each relevant document-need not be Indexed Individually. Ifdrawings are not available, the licepseeshall substitute appropriate records ofavailable Information concerning theseareas and locations.

(3) Records of the cost estimateperformed for the decommissioningfunding plan or of the amount certifiedfor decommissioning, and records of thefunding method used for assuring fundsIf either a funding plan or certification isused.

11. Section 40.42 Is revised to read asfollows:I 40.42 Expiration and termination oflicenses.

(a) Except as provided in I 40.43(b)t and paragraph (e) of this section, pach

specific license expires at the end of theday, in the month and year stated in thelicense.

t(b) Each licensee shall notify theCommission promptly, In writing underI 40.5, and request termination of thelicense when the licensee decides toterminate all activities involvingmaterials authorized under the license.This notification and request fortermination of the license must includethe reports and Information specified Inparagraphs (c)(1) (iv) and (v) of thissection and a plan for completion ofdecommissioning, If required byparagraph (c)(2) of this section or bylicense condition.

to)(1) If a licensee does not submit anapplication for license renewal under§ 40.43, the licensee shall on or beforethe expiration date specified In thelicense-

(1) Terminate use of source material;(11) Remove radioactive contamination

to the extent practicable except forthose procedures covered by paragraph(c)(2)(i) of this section;

(ill) Properly dispose of sourcematerial;

(Iv) Submit a completed form NRC-314, which certifies Informationconcerning the disposition of materials;and

(v) Conduct a radiation survey of thepremises where the licensed activitieswere carried out and submit a report of

d the results of this survey, unless thelicensee demonstrates that the premisesare suitable for release for unrestricteduse in some other manner. The licenseeshall, as appropriate-

(A) Report levels of radiation In unitsof microrads per hour of beta andgamma radiation at one centimeter andgamma radiation at one meter fromsurfaces, and report levels ofradioactivity, including alpha, In units ofdisintegrations per minute (ormicrocuries) per 100 square centimetersremovable and fixed for surfaces,microcuries per milliliter for water, andpicociiries per gram for solids such as.soils or concrete; and

(B) Specify the survey Instrument(s)used and certify that each Instrument Isproperly calibrated and tested.

(2)(i) In-addition to the Informationrequired under paragraphs (c)(1) (Iv) and(v) of this section, the licensee shallsubmit a plan for completion ofdecommissioning if the proceduresnecessary to carry out decommissioninghave not been previously approved bythe NRC and could increase potentialhealth and safety impacts to workers orto the public such as In any of thefollowing cases:

(A) Procedures-would Involvetechniques not applied routinely duringcleanup or maintenance operations; or

(B) Workers would be entering areasnot normally occupied where surfacecontamination and radiation levels aresignificantly higher than routinely.encountered during operation; or

(C) Procedures could result Insignificantly greater airborneconcentrations of radioactive materialsthan are present during operation; or

(D) Procedures could result Insignificantly greater releases ofradioactive material to the environmentthan those associated with operation.

(II) Procedures with potential healthand safety Impacts may not be carriedout prior to approval of thedecommissioning plan.

(111) The proposed decommissiohingplan, If required by paragraph (c)(2)(1) ofthis section or by license condition, mustInclude-

(A) Description of planneddecommissioning activities;

(B) Description of methods used toassure protection of workers and theenvironment against radiation hazardsduring decommissioning-

(C) A description of the planned finalradiation survey; and

(D) An updated detailed cost estimatefor decommissioning. comparison of thatestimate with present funds set aside fordecommissioning, and plan for assuringthe availability of adequate funds forcompletion Of decommissioning.

(Iv) The proposed dqcommnissioniiigplant will be approved by theCommission if the information thereindemonstrates that the decommissioningwill be completed as soon as Isreasonable and that the health andsafety of workers and the public will beadequately protected.

.(3) Upon approval of thedecommissioning plan by theCommission, the licensee shall completedecommissioning In accordance with theapproved plan. As a final step Indecomfhissioning, the licensee-shallagain submit the infornation required Inparagraph (c)(1)(v) of this section and

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24048 1988 8 .

Fe --- Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988. /-Rules and Regulations .24049N

shall certify the disposition ofeccumulated wastes fromDecommissioning.

ld) If the Information submittec undertaragraph (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of thui

section does not adequatelydemonstrate that the premises arssuitable for release for unrestrict'd use,the Commission will inform the licenseecif the appropriate further actionsrequired for termination of licenss.

(a) Each specific license continues Ineffect, beyond the expiration datu Ifnecessary, with respect to posses slon ofresidual source material present 'ascontamination until the Commissionnotifies the licensee In writing that thelicense is terminated. During this time,the licensee shall-

(1) Limit actions Involving sourcematerial to those related todlecommissioningl8 and

(2) Continue to control entry toaestricted areas until they are suitablefor release for unrestricted use and theCommission nofifies the licensee Inwriting that the license Is lermintited.

(f) Specific licenses will be tenninatedby written notice to the licensee whenthe Commissibn determines that--

(1) Source material has been properlyDisposed;

(2) Reasonable effort has been madeto eliminate residual radioactivecontamination, If present; and

(3)(1) A radiation survey has beenperformned which demonstrates Ciat thepremises are suitable for release forunrestricted use; or

(ii) Other information submittid bythe licensee is suffclent to demonstratethat the premises are suitable for releasel or unrestricted use. -

PART 50)-UMESTIC LICENSIIIG OFPRODUCTON AND UTIUZATIONlFACILITIES .

12. The authority citation for Pait 50 1srevised to read as follows:

Authority: Sacs. 10 103. 104,208, IWi: 1052tea lao leas, tal.a3e 3, 937.p, 4s..6ss,

354, 955, O as amended. sec. 234. es Stat.1244, es amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2113, 2134,135, 2201, 232s, Z233, 2230. 2239, 228 ); secs.MI, as amended, 202,208 t8 Stat. 1242, as

amended. 2244, 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5841. 5842, .* 5846). l

Section 50.7 alto Issued under PMb. L 956-301, sec. 20,92 Stal. 2951 (42 U.S.t. aB51).Sectilon 50.10 also Issued under secs. I2. 185,58 Stat. 93 ,955. as amended (42 U.8,C. 2131,225s); sec. IOZ Pub. L t-190. 83 Sta L 553 (42U.S.C, 4332), Sections 50.4 2 0.38. 50.55, and50.58 also Issued under sec. 15 00 8 tat. 955(42 U.S C. 2235). Sections 50.38a, 50.i5a andAppendix Q also Issued under sea: 102. Pub.L 91-190, 83 Stat. 88 j42 U.S.C. 43; ,Bections 334 and.50.54 aso lissued undersec. 204, e8 Stat. 245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

* Sections 50.55, 80.9, and 80.92 also Issuedunder Pub. L 97-415. 96 Slat. 2073 (42 U.S.C.2239). Section 50.75 atso Issued under sec.122, 08 Slat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections50.80-50.81 also Issued under sec. 184, 58 Sltat.954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section50.103. also under sec. 10, 88 Stat. 939, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F alsoissued under sec. 157, s8 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.2237).

For the purposes ol sec. 223. s8 Stat. 958, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2273); 1I 50.10 (a), lb).and Ic), 80.44, 50.45, 80.48, 50.54, and 50.60(a)are Issued under sGc 181b. 68 Stat. 948, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); II 50.10 (b) and(c), and 50.54 are Issued under sec. 1611. 68Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(1)); and1I 160.9, 60.565(). 50.5t)(b), 50.70, 50.715, 0.72,50.73, 50.78 are Issued under sec. 11o, 58Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

13. A new definition is added to I N0.2in appropriate alphabetical order to readas follows:

* 50.2 DefinitIons.* .t f* ^t *

"Decommission" means to remove (asa facility) safely from service andreduce residual radioactivity to a levelthat permits release.of the property forunrestricted use and termination oflicense.* ,t . . *. ,

14. Section 54.33 la amended byrepubishing the in troductory text of.paragraph (I), reviling paragraphs (il(2)and (4), and adding paragraph (k) toread as follows:

I 50.33 Contents cf appikationa, generalInformatlon.

Each application shall state:* .t . . ft

(f Except for an electric utilityapplicant for a license to operate autilization facility of the type describedin I 50.21(b) or I 0-.22, informationsufficient to demonstrate to theCornmiselon the financial qualificationof the applicant to carry out, Inaccordance with regulations in thlichapter, the activities for which thepermit or license is sought. Asapplicable, the following should beprovided:

(2) If the application is for anoperating license, the applicant shallsubmit Informatlon that demonstratesthe applicant possesses or hasreasonable assurs.nce of obtaining thefunds necessary to cover estimatedoperation costs for the period of thelicense. The appli cant shall submitestimates for total annual operatingcosts for each of the first five years ofoperation of the facility. The applicantshall also indicattu the source(s) of fundsto cover these CoE ts. An'application torenew or extend the ternm of an

operaling license must Include the tamefinanpialinformation as Is required inan application for an Initial license,

(4) The Commission may request anestablished entity or newly-formedentity to submit additional or moredetailed information respecting Itsfinancial arrangements and status offunds If the Commission considers thisInformation appropriate. This mayInclude Information regarding alicensee's ability to continue the conductof the activities authorized by thelicense and to decommission the facility.

. (k)(l() For an application for anoperating license for a production orutilization facility, Information In theform of a report, as described in 1 50.75of this part, Indicating how reasonableassurance will be provided that fundswill be available to decommission thefacility. .

(2) On or before July 26, 1990, eachholder of an operating license for aproduction orutilization facility in effecton July271990, shall submitinformation in tfie form of a report asdescribed In I 50.75 of this part,indicating how reasonable assurancewill be provided that funds will beavailable to decommission the facility.

15. Section 50.51 Is revised to read asfollows:

I 50.51 Durtlon of license, renwaLEach license will be Issued for a fixed

period of time to be specified In thelicense but in no case to exceed 40 yearsfrom the date of issuance. Where theoperation of a facility Is Involved theComnipslodi will Issue the license forthe term requested by the applicant orfor the estimated useful life of thefacility If the Commission determinesthat the estimated useful-life Is less thanthe term requested. Where constructionof a facility ts involved, the Commissionmay specify in the construction permitthe period for which the license will beissued if approved pursuant to I 50.56.Licenses may be renewed by theCommission upon the expiration of theperlod. Application for termination oflicense Is to be made pursuant to5560.82.

16. A new 1 50.75 Is added to read asfollows:

g 50675. Reporting and recordkeepIng fordecommilssloning planning.

(a) This section establishesrequirements for Indicating to NRC howreasonable assurance wilt be providedthat funds will be available fordecommissioning. For electric utilities Itconsists of a step-wlse procedure as

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24049 1988 * -

0 _-, -... Fderal-Rdestef/ Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations . - � -.. ---.24010~~~~~~~~~~ Feea eilr o.5,N. 12 I Mody Jun 27 198 I Rue an Reueto

provided in parmpraphs. (b). c)i (el, and (21 An adjustment factor Wlleast equal(i) of this sectio Furufg for to 0.65 L + 0.13 E + 0.22 RI& to be useddecommissionIng of etectric utilities is where L and E are escalation factors. foralso subject to the regulation of agencies labor and energy, respectively, and are(e.g., Federal Energy Rebiplaory to be taken from reglonal date of U.S&Commission MRCI and State Public Department of LaborBureau of Labctr.Utility Cornisslonslhaving jurisdiction Statastics and B is an escalation factorover rate regulation. The requrements for waste burlal and Is to be. taken fromof this section, in particular pragraph NRC report NUREG-1307, "Report on(c), are In addition to, and not Waste Burial Charges."substitution for, other reqements, and (d) each non-electric. utility applicantare not intended to be useL bjy for or holder of an operating license forthemselves, by other agonsies to a production or utlization facility shaUestablish rates. submit a decornmsaloning report as.

(boEachi dectric utility applicant hr required by I 50,3tkl of Nb, partor holder of an operating license for a containing a Coat esdmte krproduction or utilization facility ofthe decommissioning the facility. antype and powr level specifted In Indication of which method or methodsparagraph (4 of this ection shia sabmit described in paragraph (eJ of thisa decommnssioning report. as eu~i section as acceptable to the Commissionby & 50w33(k) of this par centaining a will be used to provide funds farcertification that financial assurance for decommissioning, and a description ofdecommissfoning will be provided In an the means of adjusting the cost estimateamount which may be more but not tess and assoclated funding levelthan the amnomt statedite ft t En periodically over the tife of the facMlty.paragraph (~1J of tids secto adusted (e)(2) Ah provided in paragrophs Ee)annually Utl a rate at twat e0W to (2) and (3) of this sbctfmn. financialthat stated In puagrai l(24 o£ tfis assurance Is to be provided by thesection. by oe or more of the methodr following methods:described it paragraph (el ofttrr ((i Prepayment. Prepayment is thesection as acceptable to, the deposit prior to the start of'operationCommisoolThe amount stated in the into an account segregated 1ceaseapplican~w' arlicense', certification assels and outside Om lieeenseemay be based on a cost estimate for adssst ative controlt f asn oruqfIddecommissioning the facility. As part of assets such thit the a youatof fundsthe certification, a copy of the financial would be cuMc oent to payInstrument obtained to satisfy the decommissioning costs.Prepaymentrequirements of paragraph (a) or this maybe In the form of a trust, escrowsection is to be submitted to NRC. account, government fund, certificate of

ic~r~ieom~ni nnsunWdepo It. or deposit of governsnentCJanuaryeo m158 m oraa) o rft~ c securities.

( q 6 e quired o (i) External sinking fund. An externaldemonstrate reasonable assurance of sinking fund fir a fund established andfunds for decommiseionfneby reactor maintained by setting finds asidetype and power leveL P (irn MM t; periodically in an account se atedadjustmentfactor.1 from licensee assets and outside the

licensee's administrative controf InAillor which the total amount ofWfund would

(l)(i}Forsa FWR: be sufficient to pay decommissioninggreater tOan or equal to costs at the time lermination of

3400 . .s05 operation Is expected. An externalbetween 1200 MWI acd sinking fund may be In the form of a

400 MWt (For a PWR trust, escrow account, government fund,of less Mhan 1200 MMt certificate of deposit, or deposit ofVMPu-TZOMW) -........... $[75+o0.00aP) government securities.

greater tham or equal o (.111) A surety method, Insurance. or3400 MWM...... . ....... 135 other guarantee method. These methods

between I200 MWVt and guarantee that decommissionrng costs3400 MWI (For a BWR will be paid should the licensee default.of less than 1200 MWM, A surety method may be In the form of ause P1Zoo MWI . S(t04+0.009P) surety bond, letter of credit, or line of

credit. Any surety method or insuranceused to provide financial insurance for

dclounltrs bsead on aciltiics related t th. decoMm11ilssioning Ipust contain thedinioiono aunfissod' t szorf this psrt following conditions:

an ont(mdlude theS cost ot removs addrtymehodonurncof spent eul or nonradtoactty structuresxsnd (A) lthe surety method or Insurancemalrlsiboyard that nocessary to tnrmnal the must be open-ended or, If written for aIlcensc. specified term. such as fIve years, miust

be renewed automatically unless 9Odays or more prior to the renewal dale,the Issuer notifies the Commission, thebeneficiary, and the licensee of itsintention not to renew. The surety orInsurance must also provide that the fullface amountbe paid to the beneficiaryaufomrticalky prior to, the expirsti iowithout proof oiforfeiture If the licenseefails to provide a replacementacceptable to the Commission wfithIn 30days afterreceliptof notification ofcancellatio.

(B)Thtsurety or insurance must bepayable to: a trust establhhed-iordecommissfionin costs. The trustee andtrustmustbeacceptable tathe .Commission. An acceptable trustee,Includes an appropriare State or Federalovernment agency or an entity whfich

gas theauthority to act as a trustee andwhose trust operations are reglatedand examined by a Federal or Stareagency.

(C)The surety method or insurancemust remain In effect until theCommission has terminated the license.

(2) For a lbcensee other than anelectrlnutfiity. acceptable methods ofproviding fnancial assurance f or

decemmisiloning are-(ii Prepayment;(Ii) An external sinklngfund. id which

deposits are made at least annually.coupled with a surety method orinsurance, the value of which maydecreaseby the amount beingaccumulated In the sinkIng fund,

(iil A surety method, insurance, orother guarantee plethod. A parentcompany guarantee of funds fordecommissioning costs based on afinancial test may be used if theguarantee and test are as contained InAppendix A of 1o CFR Part 30. A parehtcompany guarantee may not be used incombination with other financialmethods to satisfy the requirements ofthis section.

(iv) In the case of Federal. State. orlocal government licensees, a statementof Intent containing a cost estimate fordecommissioning and indicating thatfunds- ordecommissioningwill beobtained when necessary.

(3) Foranelectrfc ttility, acceptablemethods of providing financialassurance fordecommissloning are-

(I) Prepayment.(fil An external sinking fund In which

deposits are made at least annually:(ill) A surety method or Insurance,

and(Iv) In the case of Federal government

licensees, a statementof intentcontaining a cost estimate fordecommrssroning oran amount basedon paragraph (cl of this section, and


Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 I Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 24051.

indicating that funds fordecommissioning will be obtained whennecessary .

(f) Each llcensee shall at or about 5years prior to the projected end oroperation submit a preliminarydecomnissiosiing plan containing a costestimate for decommissioning and an.up lo date aisessment of the majorto3chnica1 factors that could affect .planning for decolnmipsionihg. Factorsto be considered In submitting thisinformation Include--

(1) The decommissioning alternativeanticlpated tobe used. Therequirements of I 50.82(b)(1) mus: be.considered at this time;

(2) Major technical actions necassaryto carry out decommissioning safaly;

(3) The current siluationrwith regardto disposal of high-level and low-levelradloactilve.waste;

(4) Residual radioactivity criteria;(5) Other site specific factors which

could affect decommissioning planningand cost.

If necessary, this submittal shall alsoinclude plans for adjusting levels offunds assured for decommissioning todemonstrate that a reasonable lerel ofassurance viill ie provided that findsvwill be available when needed to covertChe costs of decommissioning.

(8) Each ltcensee shall keep records ofi:1formatlon important to the safe andeffective-decommissioning of the facilityI:n an Identified location until the licensei s terminated by the Commission Ifrecords of ielevantjinformallon are keptfor other purposes, reference to thise -records.and their locations may b e used.information the Commission conaidersInportantto decommissioning consists

(1) Redods'of spills or other ur usualcccurrence= inyolving the spresd ofcontami ation In and aropnd thefacility equipminf, or site. Theserecords may. be limited to Instanceswhen significant contlmination remainsa fter any cleanup procedures or whenthere Is reasonable likelihood the tcontaminants may have spread toInaccessible areas as In the case ofpossible seepage Into porous materialssuch es concrete. These records mustincludq any known informati6n cnIdentification of involved nuclides,Quantities, forms, and concentrations. .

(2) As-built drpwings andrnodifications of structures andequipment in restricted areas whareradioactive matioals are used arid/orE tored and of locations of possibleInaccessible contamination such asburied pipes which may be subject toc ontamination. If required drawings arereferenced, each relevant.docum3ntnecd not be indexed Individually. If

drawings are not available, the licenseeshall substitute appropriate records ofavailable Informatlln doncerning these*areas and locations.

(3) Records of the cost estimateperformed for the decommissioningfunding plan or of the amount certifiedfor decommisslonlrg, and records of thefunding method used for assuring funds.:If either a funding plan or crtificatlion isused.

17. Section 50.82 is revised. to read asfollows:§I0.82 Application for termination oflicense.

(a) Any licensee may apply to theCommission for authority to surrender alicense voluntarily and to decommissionthe facility. For a focility thatpermanently ceases operation after July27. 1988 this application must be madewithin two years following permanentlcessation of operations, and In no caselater than one year prior to expiration ofthe operating licenue. Each applicationfor termination 6f license must beaccompanied, or-preceded. by aproposed decommissioning plan; For afacility which has permanently ceasedoperation prior to July 27,1988,requirements for contents of the-decommissioning plan as specified Inparagraphs (b) through (d) of this sectionmay be modified with approval of theCommission to reflect the fact that thedecommissloning process has been .initiated previously.

lb) The proposed decommissioningplan must Include--

(1) The choice of the alternative fordebom'missloningwvith a pescription ofactivities Involved,

(1) For an electric utility licensee, analternative Is acceptable If It providesfor completion of decommissioningwithin 60 years. Consideration will begiven to an alternative which providesfor completion of decommissioningbeyond 60 years only when necessary toprotect the public health and safety.Factors to be considered In evaluatingan alternative which provides for * -completion of decommissioning beyond60 years are set out In paragraph(b)(1)(il) of this se:tion. -.

(11) For a licensee other than anelectric utility, an alternative Isacceptable If it provides for completionof decommissioning without significantdelay. Consideratin will be given to analternative which provi4es for delayedcompletion of decommissioning onlywhen necessary to protect .he publichealth and safety. Factors to beconsidered In evaluating an alternativewhich provides for delayed completionof decommissioning are set out Inparagraph (b)(1)(ll ) of this section.

1iii) Factors to be considered Inmaking the evaluations required byparagraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(1i) of thissection include unavailability of wastedisposal capacity and other site specificfactors affecting the licensee's -capability to carry out decommissioningsafely, including presence of othernuclear facilities at the site.

(2) A description of controls and limitson procedures and equipment to protectoccupational and public health andsafety;

(3) A description of the planned finalradiation survey; .

(4) An updated cost estimate for thechosen alternative for decommissioning.comparlson of that estimate withpresent funds set aside fordecommissioning, and plan for assuringthe availability 9f adequate funds for*completion of decommissioning.

(5) A description of technicalspecifications, quality assuranceprovisions and physical security planprovisions In place duringdecommissioning,

(c) Decommissioning plans which.propose art alternative that delayscompletion of decommissioning byihncludingd period of storage or long-termn surveillance must provide that-

(1) Funds needed to completedecommisioning ibe placed into anaccount segregated from licensee assetsand outside the licensee'sailrrnistrative control during the itorage.or surveillance period, or a suretymethod or fund statement of intent bemaintained In accordance with thecriteria of § 50.75(e), and

(2)hMeans be Included for adjustingcosl estimates and associated fundinglevels over the storage or surveillanceperipd.

*d. ldJFor decommissioning plans in. which the malor dismantlement

activilzli are delayed by first placingthe facilily.in storage, planning for thesedelayed activities may.be less detailed.Vlpdated detalled plans must be.submitted and approved prior to thestart of these activitles.

(e3 If tlhe decmmissiloning plandemonstrates that the decommissioningwill be.perf9rmed In accordance withthe.regulations In this chapter and willnot be Inimical to the common defenseand security or to the health and safetyof the public, and after notice toInterested persons, the Commission willapprove the plan subject to suchconditions and limitations as It deemsappropriate and necessary and Issue anorder authorizing the decommissioning,

(f) The Commission will terminate thelicense If It determines that-

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24051 1988 --

24052 - Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

(1) The decmmiussioninghaslbeenperformed in accordance with the.approved decommissioning plan and theorderauthotzin; decommissionhW. and

(2) The tenibnal radiation survey andassociated documentation demons ratesthat the-facility and site am sutitable forrelease forunresticted use.

PART 51-ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION REGULATIONS FORDOMESTICW LICENSING AND RELATEDREGULATORY FUNCTIONS

I& The authority citation for Pert 51continues to read as follows:

Authoritr. SLelS, G&StaLRA aamended (4ZU.SC.22OZk mcci. 20t, asamended, zo, as StaL I2Z as amzded, 1IZU-(42 U.S.C. 5841. 5844

Subpart A also Issued under NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 196l. secs102,204, 105,83 Slat B55-1-4. at amended (41U.S.C 4332, 4334, 4333)-and Pub. L 9W-.Title U. 92 StL 30S30. S3 51= elsoissued undev ao.2.73 StaLe8Masamended by StStail 3088-3038 (421 U.C2021J.

g 51.20 [Amindedl19. Secion SI20is amended by

removing and resenring paragraphs (b)(6) and (10).

20. In § tI53. paragraph (b) is revisedto read as follows:.

151.53 Suppiementto environmentalreport* . * .

(b) Post 6peratigg license stoge. Eachapplicant for a license amendmentauthorizing the decommIasioning of aproduction or utilization facility coveredby 5 51.20 and each applicant foralicense or license amendment to storespent fuel at a nuclear power reactorafter expiratron of the operatinglicensefor the nuclear power reactor shallsubmit with Itl application the numberof copies, as specified in. I 5t.55 ofaseparate document. entitled"Supplement to, Applicant'sEnvironmental Report-Post OperatingLicense Stage,' which will update"Applicant'# Esvironmental Report-Operating License Slatp." asappropriate, to reflect any newInformation orsignfipcant environmentalchange associatedywlth the applicant'sproposed decommissioning activittes orwith the applicant's proposed acftfvlfeswith respect to the- planned torage ofspent fuel. Unlss otherwise requied bythe Commisalon, in accordance wilh thegeneric determination In j 51.23Es) andthe provisions In F 51.23gb) theapplicant shall only address theenvironmenta) impact of spent fuelstorage for the term of the licenseapplied for.The "Supplement toApplicant's Environmental Report-Post

Operating License Stage" mayIncorporate by refererncs anyinformation contained in "Applicant'sEnvironmental Report-ConstructionPermit Stage," "Supplement toApplicant's Enviromnenta) Report-Operating License Stage., finalenvironmental Impact statementsupplement to final environmentalimpact statement of records of decisionpreviously prepared In connection withthe constructi~on permwit or operatingllcense.

21. In I5b.55. paragraph(a) Is revisedto read as follows:

1 61.65 Environmental eport-number ofcopoe*; distributlon.

(a) Each applicant for a license toconstruct and operate a production orutilization facilitycovered byparagraphs (b)(t). (b)(2), (blj31 or [bJ(4}of 5 51.20 and each applicant for alicense amendment authorizing thedecommissioning of a production orutilization facility covered by I 5L2O,and each applicant for a ficense orlicense amendment to store spent fuel ata nuclear power reactor after expirationof the operating license for the nuclearpower reactor shall submit to theDirector of Nuclear Reactor Regulationor the Director of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, asappropriate,forty-one (41) copies of anenvironmental report. or any supplementto an environmental report. Theapplicant shall retaln an additional 109copies of the environmental report orany supplement to the environmentalreport for distribution to pariles andBoards In the NRC proceeding. Federal.State. and local officials and anyaffected Indian tribes. la accordancewith written instructions Issued by theDirectorof Nuclear Reactor Regulationor the Director of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, as appropriate.* . . .

22. Section 51.80 Is amended byrevising paragraph (of to read asfollows:

1 51.60 Environmental report-materialslicense

(a) Each applicant for a lcenseb orother form of permission, or anamendment to or renewal of a Itcense orother form of permission Issuedpursuant toWParts 0, 3S2 33, 34,35.3% 40.61.70 and/or 7Zof this-chapter, andcovered by paragraphs (bX1) through(b)(6) of this section, shall submit withIts application to the Directorof NuclearMaterial Safety and Safigxards, thenumber-of copies, as specified th 1 51.68.of a separate document, entitled"Applicant's Environmental Report" or

"Supplement to ApplicanrsEnvironmental Report," as appropriate.The "Applicant's Environmental Report"shall contain the information specifiedIn 1 51.45. If the application is for anamendment to or a renewal of a lcenseor other firm of permission for whichthe ippicant has previously submittedan enviroomental report, the supplementto applicant's enviroanent report maybe limited to incorporating by reference,updating or supplementin theinformationa previously submitted toreflect any signifdiant environmentalchange Including any rinficantenvironmental change resuting fromoperationalexperience or a chane in

-operations or prposed -decommisssoning ctitlies

23. In I 51.95, paragraph (bj Is revisedto read as foltows:

I 51.95 Supplement to flnal environmentalImpactslatement

(bj Post opexting license stage. inconnectorLwith the amendment of an

* opera ang license to authorize thedecommissioning ofa production orutilization facility covered by 15-1.20 orwith the. issuance. amendment orrenewal of a license to store spent fuelat a nuclear power reactor afterexpiration of the operating license forthe nuclear power reactor. the NRG staffwilt prepare a. supplementalenvironmental Impact statement for thepost operating license stage or anenvironmental assessment asappropriate. which will update the priorenvironmental review. The supplementor assessment may Incorporate-byreference anyinrormation contained inthe final environmental Impactstatement the supplement to the finalenvironmental impact statement-operatinglicense stage, orln the recordsof decision prepared In connection with.the construction permit or the operatinglicense fot. that facility. The. supplementwill Include a request for comments asprovided In 5 51.73. Unless otherwise'required ky the Commilsslon inaccordance with the genericdetermination In 5 51.23(a) and theprovisions of I 51.23(b), a supplementalenvironmental Impact statement for thepost operaling license stage or anenvironmental assessment asappropriate, will address theenvironmental Impacts of spent fuelstorage only for the term of the license,license amendment or lIcense renewalapplied for.

I

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24052 1988-*- - --

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 24053_

* PART 70-01HIESTIC LICENSIN 3 OFSPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

24. The authority citation for Part 70 hrevised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182,13, 68Slat. 929,930,948, 553 9, as amended, sec.2:4. 83 Stat. 444. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071.2Q73. 220, 2232. 2233, 282): secs. 2111, asamended. 20zZ04, 20B, 58 Slat. 1242, isamended, 1244,1746, 1240 (42 U.S.C. 5341.5142, 5845, 6848).

Section 70.7 also Issued under Pub. L. 95-sln. sec. 10. 92 Slat 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5911).Section 7021(g) also Issued under sec. 122, 6kSl at. 939 (42 U.SC. 2152). Section 70.31 alsoissued under sec 57d, Pub, L 93-77, 118 Slat.4; 5 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.38 and 70.44also Issued under ec 154, 68 Slat. 954, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.11 alsoIssued under seu. 18,187, 38 Stat. 955 (42U S.C 223 2237). Section 70.62 also laruedunder aec. 108. 6 Stat. 931 e, amended (42U.S.C. 238J.

For the purposes of sec. 223. 8 Stat. 958, aamended (42 u.Sc 22731, 5 70.3, 70..9(c).701.21(c), 70229a). (b), (dHk)-, 70.24(s) imnd (b)70l.32(a)(3). (5). (6). (d). and (iQ, 7036. 7)13(b)and (c). 70.41(a).70.42(s) and (c), 70.570.57(b), (c), and Id). 70.58(a)-{g3). anid (h)-(i I are Issued under sec. 1B1b, 68 Slat. 948, asamended (42 U.SC. 2201(b)): I 70.7.70.20a(a) and (d), 70.20b(c) and (e).7021(c).

*70.24(b), 70.32(a)(60, (c). (dl, (e). and (i). 70.3B71051(c)g), 70.58. 70.57(b) and (dl. anI71L58(sHg)(3), and (hH) are Issued t nderfiec. 1611, Be Slat 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.Z Ot(%)), and 11705. 70.9, 70.20b(d) ar d (a).70.38,70.51(b) acd (I), 70.52, 70.53, 70.14, 70.570.58(g)(4). (k), and (ll. 70.59, and 70.6((b) an(c) are Issued under sec. 16to. 68 StaL 950. aamended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

25. Section 70.4 is amended by .3ddinja new paragraph (bb) to read as follow:§ 70.4 Defrintions.* * * .* *

(bb) 'Decommissloan" means toremove (as a facility) safely from'servicand reduce residual radioactivity lo alevel that permits release of-the properlirr unrestricted use and termination oflicense.

26. Section 70.22 Is amended b)a ddinS a new paragraph (a)(9) to read ifollows:

g 70.22 Contents of applations.(a) Each application for a licenae sha

contain the following information:* . . . *

(9) As provided by 1 70.25. certaIna pplications for specific licenses filedunder this part must contain a priposedecommissioning funding plan or acirtificatlon of financial assurance fordecommissioning. In the case of renewapplications submitted before JulyV 27,1990, this submittal may follow ti erenewal application but must besubmitted on dr before* . . * 4

27. A new I 70.26 Is added to read asfollows:I 70.25 Financial soawronce andrecordlkeeping for decommissIoning.

(a) Each applicant for a specificlicense authorizing the possession and.use of unsealed special nuclear materialin quantities exceedfing.10' times theapplicable quantities set forth InAppendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 shallsubmit a decommissiioning funding planas described In paragraph (a) of thissection. A decommissioning fundiniplan must also be submitted when acombination of Isotopes Is Involved if Rdivided by 10 Is ereater than I (unityrule), where R Is deDrined here as the sumof the ratios of the quantity or eachIsotope to the appilable value InAppendix C.

(b) Each applicant for a specificlicense authorizing possession and useof unsealed special nuclear material inquantities specified in paragraph (di of

1thi section shall either-(1) Submit a decommissioning funding

plan as described lin paragraph (e) ofthis section or

(2) Submit a certification thatfinancial assurance for decommissioninghas been provided In the amountprescribed by paragraph (d) of thissection using one of the methodsdescribed In paragraph (fO of this

5. section. For an applicant, thisd certification may slate that the

appropriate assura ice will be obtainedafter the application has been-approvedand the license Issued but prior to the

s: receipt of licensed material. As part ofthe certification, a copy of the financialInstrument obtalnel to satisfy therequirements of paragraph (e) of thissection Is to be submitted to NRC.

ce (c) (1) Each holder of a specidc licenseIssued on-or after Jlly 27,1990, which Is.

'Y of a type described in paragraph (a) or(b) of this section, ahall providefinancial assurance for decommissioningIn acqordance with the criteria set forth

Is in this section.(2) Each holder of a specific license

issued before July :7, 1990, and of a typedescribed In paragraph (a) of this

'' section shall submlt, on or before July27, 1990. a decommissioning fundingplan or certification of financialassurance for decommissIoning in an

d amount at least equal to $750,000 Ind acco.dance with the criteria set forth In

this section. If the licensee submits thecertification of financial assurance.

al rather than a decommissioning fundingplan at this time, tde licensee shallinclude a decommissioning funding planIn any application for icedse renewal.

(3) Each holder-cf a specific license -Issued before July 27, 1990, and of a type

seecribed In paragraph (b) of this .- -section shall submit, on or before July27 1990, a certification of financialassurance for decommissioning or adecommissioning funding plan Inaccordance with the'criteris set forth Inthis section.

(d) Table of required amounts offinancial assurance for decommissioningby quantity of material.

greater than 10o but less than orequal to 206 times the applica-ble quantities of Appendix C ofPart 20. (For a combination ofIsotopes, If R. as denned inI 70.25(a). divided by 0 Isgreater than 1 but R divided bylo2 is less than or equal to 1.) _. S750,000

greater than 1o0 but less than orequal to 10 times the applica-ble quantities of Appendix C ofPart 20. (For a combination ofisotopes, If P. as denned In1 70.25(a. divided by 1Is igreater than 1 but R divided by104 Is less than or equal to 1.) . $150,000

(e) Each decommissioning fundingplan must contain a cost estimate fordecommissioning and a description ofthe method of assuring funds for

*decommissioning from paragraph (fQ ofthis section, Including means ofadjusting cost estimates and associatedfunding levels periodically over thejifeof the facility.

(fO Financial assurance fordecommissioning must be provided byone or more of the following methods:

(1) Prepayment. Piepayment Is thedeposit prior to the start of operationInto an account segregated from licenseeassets and outside the licensee'sadministrative control of cash or liquidassets such that the amount of fundswould be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs. Prepaymentmay be In the form of a trust. escrowaccount, government fund, certificate ofdeposit, or deposit of governmentsecurities.-

(2) A surety method. Insurance, orother guarantee method. These methodsguarantee that decommissioning costswill be paid should the licensee default.A surety method may be In the form of asurety bond, letter'of credit, or line ofcredit. A parent comipany guarantee offunds for decqmmissioning costs basedon a financial test may be used if theguarantee and test are as contained InAppendix-A of 10 CFR Part 30r A parentcompany guarantee may not be used incombination with other financialmethods to satisfy the requirements ofthis section. Any surety method orInsurance used to provide financial



assurance for decommissioning mustcontain the following conditions:

(1) The surety method or Insurancemust be open-ended or, If written for aspecified lern, such as five years, mustbe renewed automatically unless 90days or more prior to the renewal date,the Issurer notifies the Commission, thebeneficiary, and the licensee of ItsIntention not to renew. The suretymethod or insurance must also providethat the full face amount be paid to thebeneficiary automatically prior to theexpiratiqn without proof of forfeiture ifthe licensed6fals to provide areplacement acceptable to theCommission i;ithin 30 days after receiptof notification Or cancellation.

(i) The surety method or insurancemust be payable to a trust established.for decomrissloning costs. The trusteeand trust must be acceptable to theCommisslon.-An acceptable trusteeIncludes ah appropriate State or Federalgovernment agency or an entity whichhas the authority to act as a trustee andwhose trust operations are regulatedand examined by a Federal or Stateagency.

(111) The surety method or Insurancemust remain in effect until theCommission has terminated the license.

(3) An external sinking fund In whichdeposits are made at least annually.coupled with a surety method orinsurance, the value of which mnaydecrease by the amount beingaccumulated In the sinking fund. Anexternal sinking fund is a fundestablished and maintained by settingaside funds periodically In an accountsegregated from licensee assets andoutside the licenssee's administrativecontrol in which the total amount offunds would be sufficient to paydecomnilsslionifig costs at the timetermination of operation Is expected. Anexternal sinking fund mnay be In the formof a trust: escrow account, governmeiitfund, cerilficate of deposit, or deposit ofgovernment securities. The surety orInsurance provisions must be as statedIn paragraph (f)(2) of this section.

(4) In the case bf Federal, State. orlocal government licensees, a statementof Intent containing a cost estimate fordecommissioning or an amount basedon the Table In paragraph (d) of thissection, and Indicating that funds fordecommissioning will be obtained whennecessary.

(g) Each person licensed under thispart shall keep records of Informationimportant to the safe and effectivedecommissioning of the facility In anIdentified location until the license Isterminated by the Commission. Ifrecords of relevant Information are keptfor other purposes, reference to these

records and their.locations may be used.Information the Commission considersimportant to decommissioning consistsof-

(1) Records of spills or other unusualoccurrences Involving the spread ofcontamination In and around thefacility, equipment, or site. Theserecor amay be limited to Instanceswhen contamination remains after anycleanup procedures or when there Isreasonable likelihood that contaminantsmay have spread to inaccessible areas

.as In the case of possible seepage Intoporous materials such as concrete.These records must Include any knowninformation on Identification of Involvednuclides, quantities, forms. andconcentrations.

(2) As-built drawings andmodifications of structures and,equipment In restricted areas whereradioactive materials are used and/orstored and of locations of possibleInaccessible contamination such asburied pipes which may be subject tocontamination. If required drawings are.referenced, each relevant documentneed not be Indexed individually. Ifdrawings are not available, the licensee

-shall substitute appropriate records ofavailable information concerning theseareas and locations..

(3) Records of the cost estimateperformed for the decommissioning.funding plan or of the amount certiIedfor decommissioning, and records of thefunding method used for assuring fundsif either a funding plan or certification Isused.

28. Section 70.38 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 0?38 Expiration and termination oflicenses.

(a) Except as prbvided In § 70.33(b)and paragraph (e) of this section, eachspecific license expires at the end of-theday, In the month and year stated In thelicense.* (b) Each licensee shall notify the

Commission promptly.in wilting underi 70.5, and request termination of the'license when the licensee decides toterminate all activities Involvingmatarials authorized under the license.This notification and request fortermination of the license must Includethe reports and Information specified Inparagraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of thissection and a plan for completion ofdecommissioning If required byparagraph (c)(2) of this section or bylicense condition.

(c)(1) If a licensee does not submit anapplication for license under i 70.33, thelicensee shall on or before theexpiration date specified In thelicense-.

(I) Terminate use of special nuclearmaterial;

(11) Remove radioactive contaminationto the extent practicable except forthose procedures covered by paragraph(c)(2)(1) of this section;

(iii) Properly dispose of specialnuclear material;

(iv) Submit'a completed form NRC-314, which certifies informationconcerning the disposition of materials;and

(v) Conduct a radiation survey of Ihepremises where the licensed activitieswere carried out and submit a report ofthe results of this survey, unless thelicensee demonstrates that the premisesare suitable for release for unrestricteduse In some other manner. The licensee .shall, as appropriate-.

(A) Report levels of radiation in unitsof microrads per hour of beta andgamma radiation at one centimeter andgamma radiation at one meter fromsurfaces, and report levels of *radioactivity, Including alpha, In units ofdisintegrations per minute (ormicrocuries) per 100 square centimetersremovable and fixed for surfaces,microcuties per milliliter for water, andpicocurles per gram for solids such assoils or concrete; and

(B) Specify the survey instrument(s)used and certify that each Instrument Isproperly calibrated and tested.* 2J(i) In addition to the information

required under paragraphs (c)(l) (iv) and(v) of this section, the licensee shallsubmit a plan for completion ofdecommissioning If the proceduresnecessary to carry-out decommissioninghave not been previously approved bythe NRC and could Increase potentialhealth and safety impacts to workers orto the public such as In any of thefollowing cases:

(A) Procedures would Involvetechniques not applied routinely duringcleanup or maintenance operations;.or

( (B) Workers would be entering aroapsnot normally occupied where surface .contamination and radiation levels aresignificantly higher than routinely'encounterd during operation; or ;

(C) Procedures could result Insignificantly greater airbmrneconcentrations of radioactive materialsthan are present during operation; or

(D) Procedurei could result Insignificantly greater releases ofradioactive material to the environmentthan those associated with operation.

(i{) Procedures with potential healthand safety impacts may not be carriedout prior to approval of thedecommissioning plan.

(111) The proposed decrommissloning.plan, if required by phragraph (c)(2)(i) of

S-02 1999 0044(02XZ4-JUN-88-1 1:52:37)

. ... .... 1.. .. __-..... ... .. - .- . - ... HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 24054 1988a

Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 123. / Monday, June. 27,. l988 -/Rules and Regulations _24055- -

this section or by license condltloli, mustInclude-

(A) Description of planneddt commissioning activities;

(B) Description of methods used toassure protection of workers and Theenvironment against radiation ha ardsduring decommissioning-

(C) A description of the plannec finalradiation survey; and

(D) An updated detailed cost estimatefor decommissioning, comparison of thatestimate with present funds set aside forde commissioning, and plan for asuuringtha availability of adequate funds forcompletion of decommissioning.

(E) A description of'the physicalsecurity plan and material control andaccounting plan provisions In placeduring decommissioning.

(iv) The proposed decommissionilngpla n will be approved by theCommission If the Information thereindemonstrates that the decommissloningwill be completed as soon as isreasonable-and that the health an isafety of workers and the public i'lU beadequately protected.

(3J Upon approval of theducommissionlng plan by theCommission, the licensee shall compietedecommissioning in accordance ith theapproved plan. As a final step inde'commissloning: the licensee shbilJaE:aIn submit the information required Inparagraph (c)(i)(v) of this section andshall certify the disposition ofaccumulated wastes fromdtcommissionlrn.

(d) If the Informition submitted underparagraphs (c](1](v) or (c)(3) of thissection does not adequatelydemonstrate that the premises artsultable for release for unrestricted use.the Commission will Inform the licenseeof the appropriate further aectionsrequired for termination of licansv.

(e) Each specific license continues Ineffect, beyond the expiration date ifnccessary, with respect to possesolon ofresidual special nuclear material presentas contamination until the Commissionnotifles the licensee In writing that thelicense Is terminated. During this lIme,the license shall-

(1) Limit actions Involving specialnuclear material to those related todecommissioning; and

(2) Continue to control entry torestricted areas until they are suitablefor release for unrestricted use and theCommission notifies the licensee Inwriting that the license is terminaled.

(f) Specific licenses will be terninatedbvr written notice to the licensee whenthe Commission determines that--

(1) Special nuclear material his beenproperly disposed;

(2) Reasonable effort has been madeto eliminate residual radioactivecontamination, If prpsent, and

(3) (1) A radiatilon survey has beenperformed which demonstrates that thepremises are suitable for release forunrestricted use; or

(iI) Other Information submitted bythe licensee Is sufficient to demonstratethat the premises are suitable for releasefor unrestricted use.

PART 72-LICENSINGREQUIREMENTS FOIR THE STORAGEOF SPENT FUEL IN AN INDEPENDENTSPENT FUEL STORAGEINSTALLATION

29. Tbe authority citation for Part 72 isrevised to read as follows.

Audority: Sec. 5t, 53, 57, 82, 65, 85.69.81.l.18, M 183.184 118. 1S7, 189. 88 Stat. 929,930,932, 833.94I935, 34e,953.954, . assamended, sec. 234.3 :5tat. 444. as amended(42 U.sC. 201, 2073,2077, 209Z 293, 209,

'2099,2111,2O2. 2232, 2233. 2234, 228 2237.*2z38,2z821; sec. 274. Pub. L 8-373, 73 Stat.888. as amended (42 U.S.C. 21r sec. 2Z. asamended, 202,D M88 Stat; 1242 as amended,.1244. 124i42 US.C. 6341. 5ML 584) Pub. L95-601, sec. 0. 92 Stal. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851);sec. IOZ Pub. L 91-191L 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.4332).

Section 72.34 also lesued under sec. 189, s8Stat. 5s (42 U.S.C. Z19); sec. 134, Pub. L 97-425, 96Stat. 22s0 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

For tha purposes of sec. 223, 88 Stat. 958, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2 731: I S 72.6. 7214.72.15. 72.17(dJ. 72.49, 72.33(b)(1), (4), (5), le),(fi. and 72.36(a) are isniued under sec. a81b, 88Stat. 98. as amended (42 U.S.C ZZ01(b));

1 72.10. 72.15. 72.17(d), 72.33(c), (dpi), (2).(e) 727.1. 7244(a), and 72.91 are issuedunder sec. 11.L u8 Stat. 949, as amended (42U.S.C. 22(01(; and II 72.9a, 733t(b)(3).(d)(3), (1), 72.35(b). 72.50-72.52,72Z53(a).72.54(a). 72.65, 72.58,72.80(c), and 72.84[b) areissued under se laic., 88 Stat. 960, as.amended (42 U.S.C. ZM(o)).

30. Section 72.3 Is amended by addinga new paragraph (y) to read as follows:

I 72.3 Definitions,* .t .t ft

(y) Decommilsslon" means to remove(as a facility) puaely from service andreduce residual radioactivity to a levelthat permits release of the property for*unrestricted use and termination oflicense.

31. Section 72.14 Is amended byrevising paragrpah (e)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 72.14 Contents of sppilcation: Generaland financial Information.

N3) Estimated decommissIoning costs.and the necessary flnancialarrangements to provide reasonableassurance prior to licensing that

decommissioning will be carried outafter the removal of spent fuel fromstorage.

32. Section 72.18 Is revised by revisingthe section heading and paragraph (b)and by adding new paragraphs (c) and(d) to read as follows:

* 72.18 Decommissioning planning,Including financing and recordkeeping.* ft ft . .

(b) The decommissioning funding planmust contain Information on howreasonable assurance will be providedthat funds will be available todecommission the ISFSI. ThisInformation must include a cost estimatefor decommissioning and a descriptionof the method of assuring funds fordecommissioning from paragraph (c) ofthis section. including means ofadjusting cost estimates and associatedfunding levels periodically over the lLfeof the ISFSI.

(c) Financial asssurance fordecommissioning must be provided byone or more of the following methods:.

(1) Prepayment. Prepayment Is thedqeposit prior to the start of operationInto an account segregated from licenseeassets and outside the licensee'sadministrative control of cash or liquidassets such that the amount of fundswould be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs. Prepaymentmay be in the form of a trust, escrow,account, government fund, certificate ofdeposit, or deposit of governmentsecurifies.

(2) A surety method, insurance, orother guarantee method. These methodsguarantee that decommlsloining costswill be paid should the licensee default.A surety method maybe in the form of asurety bond, letter of credit, or lne of-credit. A parent company guarantee offunds for deconmissioning costs basedon a financial test may be used if theguarantee and test are as contained inAppendix A of 10 CFR Part 30. A parentcompany guarantee may not be used Incombination with other financialmethods to satisfy the requirements ofthis section. Any surety method orinsurance used to provide financialassurance for decommissioning mustcontain the following conditions:

(i) The surety method or insurancemust be open-ended or, If-written for aspecified term, such as five years, mustbe renewed automatically unless 90days or more prior to the renewal date,the Issuer notifies the Commission, thebeneficiary, and the licensee of ItsIntentlon'not to renew. The suretymethod or Insurance must also providethat the full face qmount be.paid to thebeneflciary hutomatically'prior to the


....-........ 24056. - Federal.Register /.Yol. 53, No. 123 / Monday, june 27, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

expiration without proof of forfeiture Ifthe licensee falls to provide areplacement acceptable to theCommission within 30 days after receiptof notification of cancellation.

(II) The surety method or Insurancemust be payable to a trust establishedfor decommissioning costs. The trusteeand trust must be acceptable to theCommission. An acceptable trusteeIncludes an appropriate State-or Federalgovernment agency or an entity whichhas the authority to act as a trustee andwhose trust operations are regulatedand examined by a Federal or Stateagency.

[111) The surety of Insurance mustremain In effect until the Commissionhas terminated the license.

(3) An external sinking fund in whichdeposits are made at least annually,coupled with a surety method orInsurance, the value of which maydecrease by the amount beingaccumulated in the sinking fund. Anexternal sinking fund Is a fundestablished and maintained by settingaside funds periodically In an accountsegregated from licensee assets andoutside the licensee's administrativecontrol in which the total amount ofFunds would be sufficient to paydecommissioning costs at the timetermination of operation Is expected. Anexternal sinking fund may be in the formof a trust. escrow account, governmentfund, certificate of deposit or deposit ofgovernment securities. The surety orInsurance provision must be as stated Inparagraph (c)(2) of this section.

(4) In the case of Federal, State, orlocal government licensees, a statementof intent containing a cost estimate fordecommissioning, and indicating thatfunds for decommissioning will beobtained when necessary.

(5) In the case of electric utilitylicensees, the methods of § 50.74(e) (1)and(13) of this chapter.

(d) Each licensee shall keep records ofInformation Important to the sate andeffective decommissioning of the facilityIn an identified location until the licenseIs. terminated by the Commission. Ifrecords of relevant Information are keptfor other purposes, reference to theserecords and their locations may be used.Information the Commission considersimportant to decommissioning consistsof-

(1) Records of spills or other unusualoccurrences Involving the spread ofcontamination In and around thefacility, equipment, or site. Theserecords may be limited to Instances

when contamination remains after anycleanup procedures or when there Isreasonable likelihood that contaminantsmay have spread to inaccessible areasas In the case of possible seepage Intoporous materials such as concrete.These records must Include any knowninformation on identification of involvednuclides, quantities, forms, andconcentrations.

(2) As-built drawings andmodifications of structures andequipment In restricted areas whereradioactive materials are used and/orstored, and of locations of possibleInaccessible contamination such asburied pipes which may be subject tocontamination. If required drawings arereferenced, each relevant documentneed not be indexed Individually. Ifdrawings are not available, the licenseeshall substitute appropriate records of.available information concerning theseareas and locations.

(3) Records of the cost estimateperformed for the decommissioningfunding plan or of the amount certifiedfor decommissioning, and records of thefunding method used for assuring fundsIf either a funding plan or certification Isused.

33. Section 72.38 Is revised to read asfollows:

I 7.38 Appscation for termination oflicenm

(a) Any licensee may apply to theCommission for authority to surrender alicense voluntarily and to decommissionthe ISFSI. This applicatIon must bemade within two years followingpermanent cessation of operations, andIn no case later than one year prior toexpiration of the license. Eachapplication for termination of licensemust be accompanied, or preceded, by aproposed final decommissioning plan.

(b) The proposed finalDecommissioning plan must Include-

(1) The choice of the alternative fordecommissioning with a description ofactivities involved. An alternative Isacceptable If it provides for completionof decommissioning without significantdelay. Consideration will be given to analternative which provides for delayedcompletion of decommissioning onlywhen necessary to protect the publichealth and safety. Factors to beconsidered In evaluating an alternativewhich provides for delayed completionof decomiissioning includeunavailability of waste disposalcapacity and other site specific factors

affecting the licensee's capability tocarry out decommissioning safely,Including presence of other nuclearfacilities at the site.

(2) A description of controls and limits.on procedures and equipment to protectoccupational and public health andsafety;

(3) A description of the planned finalradiation survey; and

(4) An updated detailed cost estimatefor the chosen alternative fordecommissioning, comparison of thatestimate with present funds set aside fordecommissioning, and plan for assuringthe availability of adequate funds forcompletion of decommissioningIncluding means for adjusting costestimates and associated funding levelsover any storage or surveillance period.

(8) A description of technicalspecifications and quality assuranceprovisions In place duringdecommissioning,

(c) For final decommissioning plans Inwhich The major dismantlementactivities are delayed by first placingthe ISFSI in storage, planning for thesedelayed activities may be less detailed.Updated detailed plans must besubmitted and approved prior to thestart of such activities.

(d) If the final decommissioning plandemonstrates that the decommissioningwill be performed In accordance withthe regulations In this chapter and willnot be Inimical to the common defenseand security or to the health and safelyof the public, and after notice toInterested persons, the Commission willapprove the plan subject to suchconditions and limitations as It deemsappropriate and necessary and Issue anorder authorizing the decommissioning.

(a) The Commission will terminate thelicense If It determines that-

(1) The decommissioning has beenperformed In accordance with theapproved final decommissioning planand the order authorizingdecommissioning; and

(2) The terminal radiation survey andassociated documentation demonstratesthat the ISFSI and site are suitable forrelease for unrestricted use.

Dated at Rockville, MD. this 17th day ofJune 1988.

For 1he Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Samuel 1. Chilk,Secreloryof the Commission.(FR Doc. 6-14333 Filed -24-88; 8:45 am)

UIL19O COOt 7610-41.

ii

__ _:. - - '_ __. I 7 HeinOnline.-- 53 Fed.-Reg.-24056-1988.--

1988/06/27-les hearing - applicant exhibit 120, 'general … · 2012-11-21 · i 1?a5...

Documents