[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 146 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39278-39304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19031]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 51

RIN 3150-AE96


Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations 
on the decommissioning procedures that lead to the termination of an 
operating license for nuclear power reactors. The final amendments 
clarify ambiguities in the current rule and codify procedures that 
reduce the regulatory burden, provide greater flexibility, and allow 
for greater public participation in the decommissioning process. Some 
minor amendments pertain to non-power reactors and are for purposes of 
clarification and procedural simplification. The Commission believes 
that the final amendments will enhance efficiency and uniformity in the 
regulatory process of decommissioning nuclear power plants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6194; or S. Singh Bajwa, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018), the Commission promulgated 
decommissioning regulations. On July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37374), the 
Commission issued proposed amendments to these regulations. A 
discussion of the current requirements and proposed amendments follows.

Current Requirements

    Within 2 years after a licensee permanently ceases operation of a 
nuclear reactor facility, it must submit a detailed decommissioning 
plan to the NRC for approval, along with a supplemental environmental 
report that addresses environmental issues that have not already been 
considered. Based on these submittals, the NRC reviews the licensee's 
planned activities, prepares a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and an 
environmental assessment (EA), and either makes a negative declaration 
of impact (the usual case) or prepares an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). Upon NRC approval of the decommissioning plan, the 
Commission issues an order permitting the licensee to decommission its 
facility in accordance with the approved plan. As part of the approval 
process, the opportunity for a hearing under subpart G of 10 CFR part 
2, is made available to the public. Once the decommissioning process is 
completed and the NRC is satisfied that the facility has been 
radioactively decontaminated to an unrestricted release level, the NRC 
terminates the license.
    If the licensee chooses to place the reactor in storage and 
dismantle it at a later time, the initial decommissioning plan 
submittal need not be as detailed as a plan for prompt dismantlement. 
However, before the licensee can begin dismantlement, a detailed plan 
and environmental report must be submitted and approved by the 
Commission.
    Before the decommissioning plan is approved, the licensee cannot 
perform major decommissioning activities. If a licensee desires a 
reduction in requirements because of the permanent cessation of 
operation, it must obtain a license amendment for possession-only 
status. This is usually granted after the licensee indicates that the 
reactor has permanently ceased operations and fuel has been permanently 
removed from the reactor vessel.
    A licensee is required to provide assurance that at any time during 
the life of the facility, through termination of the license, adequate 
funds will be available to complete decommissioning. For operating 
reactors, the amount of decommissioning funding required is generically 
prescribed in 10 CFR 50.75. Five years before license expiration or 
cessation of operations, a preliminary decommissioning plan containing 
a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate must be submitted and the 
financial assurance mechanism must be appropriately adjusted. Finally, 
the decommissioning plan, submitted within 2 years after permanent 
cessation of operations, must provide a site-specific cost estimate for 
decommissioning and a correspondingly adjusted financial assurance 
mechanism. For delayed dismantlement of a power reactor facility, an 
updated decommissioning plan must be submitted with the estimated cost 
of decommissioning and the licensee must appropriately adjust the 
financial assurance mechanism. Before approval of the decommissioning 
plan, licensee use of these funds would be determined on a case-
specific basis for premature closure, when accrual of required 
decommissioning funds may be incomplete.

Proposed Amendments

    The degree of regulatory oversight required for a nuclear power 
reactor during its decommissioning stage is considerably less than that 
required for the facility during its operating stage. During the 
operating stage of the reactor, fuel in the reactor core undergoes a 
controlled nuclear fission reaction that generates a high neutron flux 
and large

[[Page 39279]]

amounts of heat. Safe control of the nuclear reaction involves the use 
and operation of many complex systems. First, the nuclear reaction must 
be carefully controlled through neutron absorbing mechanisms. Second, 
the heat generated must be removed so that the fuel and its supporting 
structure do not overheat. Third, the confining structure and ancillary 
systems must be maintained and degradation caused by radiation and 
mechanical and thermal stress ameliorated. Fourth, the radioactivity 
resulting from the nuclear reaction in the form of direct radiation 
(especially near the high neutron flux areas around the reactor 
vessel), contaminated materials and effluents (air and water) must be 
minimized and controlled. Finally, proper operating procedures must be 
established and maintained with appropriately trained staff to ensure 
that the reactor system is properly operated and maintained, and that 
operating personnel minimize their exposure to radiation when 
performing their duties. Moreover, emergency response procedures must 
be established and maintained to protect the public in the event of an 
accident.
    During the decommissioning stage of a nuclear power reactor, the 
nuclear fission reaction is stopped and the fuel (spent fuel 
assemblies) is permanently removed and placed in the spent fuel pool 
until transferred offsite for storage or disposal. While the spent fuel 
is still highly radioactive and generates heat caused by radioactive 
decay, no neutron flux is generated and the fuel slowly cools as its 
energetic decay products diminish. The spent fuel pool, which contains 
circulating water, removes the decay heat and filters out any small 
radioactive contaminants escaping the spent fuel assemblies. The spent 
fuel pool system is relatively simple to operate and maintain compared 
to an operating power reactor. The remainder of the facility contains 
radioactive contamination and is highly contaminated in the area of the 
reactor vessel. However, because the spent fuel is stored in a 
configuration that precludes the nuclear fission reaction, no 
generation of new radioactivity can occur. Safety concerns for a spent 
fuel pool are greatly reduced regarding both control of the nuclear 
fission process and the resultant generation of large amounts of heat, 
high neutron flux and related materials degradation, and the stresses 
imposed on the reactor system. Contaminated areas of the facility must 
still be controlled to minimize radiation exposure to personnel and 
control the spread of radioactive material. This situation is now 
similar to a contaminated materials facility and does not require the 
oversight that an operating reactor would require.
    Based on the preceding discussion, it should be noted that during 
the operating stage of the reactor a nuclear reaction must be sustained 
that has the potential during an accident to generate significant 
amounts of energy and radiation whose consequences can be severe. 
Moreover, the nature of maintaining and controlling a nuclear reaction 
and the complexity of systems and operations requirements necessary to 
prevent and mitigate adverse consequences requires considerable 
oversight by the NRC. During the decommissioning stage of the reactor, 
the potential for consequences that could result from an inadvertent 
nuclear reaction are highly unlikely. The systems required for 
maintaining the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool as well as the 
operations required to contain the remaining residual contamination in 
the facility and spent fuel pool are relatively simple. Consequently, 
the activities performed by the licensee during decommissioning do not 
have a significant potential to impact public health and safety and 
these require considerably less oversight by the NRC than during power 
operations.
    The amendments proposed in July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37374), were 
intended to provide licensees with simplicity and flexibility in 
implementing the decommissioning process, especially with regard to 
premature closure. The proposed amendments were intended to clarify 
ambiguities in the current regulations, codify procedures and 
terminology that have been used in a number of specific cases, and 
increase opportunities for the public to become informed about the 
licensee's decommissioning activities. The amendments were designed to 
establish a level of NRC oversight commensurate with the level of 
safety concerns expected during decommissioning activities.
    A. Initial activities. The decommissioning process outlined in the 
proposed amendments was similar in approach to that in the current 
decommissioning rule, but included flexibility in the type of actions 
that can be undertaken without NRC approval. Once a licensee 
permanently ceases operation of the power reactor, no major 
decommissioning activities (as defined in the proposed rule) could be 
undertaken until the public and the NRC were provided information by 
the licensee. Information required from the licensee in a Post-Shutdown 
Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) consisted of the licensee's 
proposed decommissioning activities and schedule through license 
termination, an assessment of whether such proposed activities are 
bounded by existing analyses of environmental impacts, and a general 
decommissioning cost estimate for the proposed activities. The PSDAR 
would be made available to the public for comment.
    Ninety days after the PSDAR submittal to the NRC and approximately 
30 days after a public information meeting is held in the vicinity of 
the reactor site, the licensee could perform major decommissioning 
activities if NRC does not offer an objection. Before undertaking these 
activities, the licensee must provide certifications to the NRC that 
operations have permanently ceased and fuel has been permanently 
removed from the reactor vessel (elements not formally addressed in the 
current rule). Once these certifications have been provided to the NRC, 
the licensee could no longer operate the reactor.
    Part 50 technical requirements would also be amended to properly 
cover the transition of the facility from operating to permanent 
shutdown status (which also is not explicitly covered in the current 
rule). Thus, a licensee who has permanently ceased operations and 
removed fuel from the reactor vessel would no longer need to obtain a 
license amendment to proceed with certain decommissioning activities 
within established regulatory constraints.
    B. Major decommissioning activities. A major change from the 
current rule is that power reactor licensees would no longer be 
required to have an approved decommissioning plan before being 
permitted to perform major decommissioning activities. Under the 
proposed rule, licensees would be allowed to perform activities that 
meet the criteria proposed in Sec. 50.59. Section 50.59 would be 
amended to include additional criteria to ensure that concerns specific 
to decommissioning are considered by the licensee. Based on NRC 
experience with licensee decommissioning activities, the Commission 
recognized that the Sec. 50.59 process used by the licensee during 
reactor operations encompassed routine activities that are similar to 
those undertaken during the decommissioning process. The Commission 
concluded that the Sec. 50.59 process could be used by the licensee to 
perform major decommissioning activities if licensing conditions and 
the level of NRC oversight required during reactor operations are 
continued, commensurate with the status of the facility being 
decommissioned. These

[[Page 39280]]

objectives were considered in the proposed rule as follows.
    (1) The proposed rule would clarify, modify, and extend certain 
licensing conditions to decommissioning activities.
    (2) Aside from changes to part 50, the final safety analysis report 
(FSAR), which is a licensing basis document for performing activities 
under Sec. 50.59, would need to be updated to cover decommissioning 
activities.
    (3) A PSDAR would be submitted to the NRC that would contain a 
schedule of planned decommissioning activities and provide a mechanism 
for timely NRC oversight. The licensee would provide written 
notification to the NRC before performing any decommissioning activity 
that is inconsistent with or makes significant schedule changes from 
the PSDAR.
    C. License termination. A licensee wishing to terminate its license 
would submit a license termination plan for approval similar to the 
approach that is currently required for a decommissioning plan. 
However, the plan would be less detailed than the decommissioning plan 
required by the current rule, because it would not need to provide a 
dismantlement plan, and could be as simple as a final site survey plan. 
The approval process for the termination plan, as in the current rule, 
would provide for a hearing opportunity under 10 CFR part 2. The 
proposed rule recognized that, if the spent fuel is either offsite or 
in an independent spent fuel storage facility (ISFSI), that is covered 
under a part 72 license, the remaining facility licensed under part 50 
is similar to a materials facility and a less formal hearing, under 
subpart L rather than subpart G of part 2, is more appropriate. As in 
the current rule, a supplemental environmental report would be required 
from the licensee that considers environmental impacts that are not 
already covered in existing EISs. An additional requirement, proposed 
for the purpose of keeping the public informed, is that a public 
meeting be held, after the licensee submits the license termination 
plan to the NRC, similar to the one held after the PSDAR submittal.
    D. Financial assurance. The proposed rule would continue the same 
degree of financial assurance as the current rule, but provide more 
flexibility by allowing licensee's limited early use of decommissioning 
funds. This provision was presented in a draft policy statement 
entitled ``Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning 
Plan Approval'' (59 FR 5216; February 3, 1994) that was published by 
the Commission for comment and incorporated into the proposed rule. 
Currently, licensee use of these funds is determined on a case-specific 
basis for prematurely shutdown plants. However, the proposed rule 
eliminated the requirement for a decommissioning plan and instead 
required a PSDAR submittal, which requires a decommissioning cost 
estimate. The proposed rule permitted some small percentage (3%) of the 
generically prescribed decommissioning funds to be available to the 
licensee for planning purposes (``paper studies'') before permanent 
cessation of power reactor operations. Moreover, to permit the licensee 
to accomplish major decommissioning activities promptly, an additional 
generic funding amount would be made available (20%) before a site-
specific cost estimate, which must be submitted to the NRC within 2 
years after permanent cessation of operations (as in the current rule). 
The remainder of the funds would be made available after submittal of 
the site-specific cost estimate, as in the current rule. When the 
licensee submits the license termination plan, the same financial 
considerations as those in Sec. 50.82(c) of the current rule would be 
required to provide assurance that the licensee has adequate funds to 
complete decommissioning and terminate the license.
    E. License extension. The proposed rule clarified that a license 
that has expired is not terminated until the Commission terminates it 
and further clarifies what conditions prevail under such circumstances.
    F. Grandfathering. The proposed rule applied to power reactor 
licensees who do not have an approved decommissioning plan on the 
effective date of the final rule. Licensees that already have an 
approved plan could, at their option, follow the provisions of the 
proposed rule.
    G. Non-power reactors. There were some minor clarifications and 
procedural simplifications in the proposed rule for the non-power 
reactor decommissioning process. Otherwise, the current rule remained 
essentially unchanged.

Response to Comments

    Thirty-four comment letters were received on the proposed rule from 
power reactor licensees, contractors, Government agencies, Agreement 
States, citizens groups, and individuals. The comment letters have been 
categorized into two groups representing commenters generally in favor 
of the proposed rule and those generally not in favor of the proposed 
rule. The commenters in favor of the rule (24) consisted of power 
reactor licensees, contractors, Government agencies, and an Agreement 
State. The commenters not in favor of the rule (10) consisted of 
citizens groups, individuals, and an Agreement State. The comments have 
been summarized and addressed through issue categories based on the 
proposed rule.
    Issue 1--Proposed Rule Approach.
    Comments. Commenters in support of the proposed rule were, to 
varying degrees, supportive of the proposed rule. There were a few 
commenters in this group who fully supported the proposed rule because 
it would facilitate efficient decommissioning of power plants by 
reducing regulatory burden, clarifying the applicability of regulations 
originally intended for operating reactors, allowing a phased approach 
to decommissioning, and allowing early partial use of the 
decommissioning trust fund. A few commenters supported the use of 
lessons learned from ongoing decommissioning projects, expanding public 
participation, and providing the rationale behind less formal NRC 
policies and practices in a way that satisfies the requirements of the 
Atomic Energy Act (AEA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    While many commenters were generally supportive of the general 
concept of the proposed rule, they indicated that the proposed rule did 
not go far enough in reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. They noted 
that the existing NRC requirements regarding operating reactors were 
more than adequate to encompass decommissioning activities and, if 
anything, should be relaxed rather than expanded. These recommended 
relaxations pertained to such items as a more liberal attitude toward 
collection and use of decommissioning trust funds, elimination of 
unnecessary criteria concerning the use of the proposed Sec. 50.59, 
elimination of proposed mandatory public meetings, elimination of the 
proposed Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) 
submittal, and elimination of the proposed license termination plan or 
eliminating its inclusion into the license by amendment, including 
elimination of the accompanying proposed Subpart L or G hearing 
opportunity.
    Commenters not in favor of the proposed rule were not supportive of 
the proposed rule to varying degrees. Many of these commenters were 
strongly opposed to the proposed rule and indicated that it allowed 
nuclear power generators to have discretionary

[[Page 39281]]

powers to regulate themselves; that NRC was abdicating its 
responsibility for protecting the health and safety of workers and the 
public; that, in allowing the decommissioning plan to be included in 
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) it could be revised without 
license amendment, thereby excluding the public from the process; and 
that major component removal should not be allowed before the 
decommissioning plan is approved by the NRC. These commenters expressed 
a variety of views indicating that the existing rule should be left 
alone or that the current rule should be left basically in place but 
made more efficient through better implementation and should include 
greater opportunities for public participation. Finally, a few 
commenters indicated that significantly greater public participation 
and oversight are necessary than that prescribed in the proposed rule.
    Response. The proposed rule was developed to allow more flexibility 
in dealing with premature closures, the decommissioning process in 
general, and the experience gained from recent decommissioning 
activities such as those at Fort St. Vrain, Shoreham, and Rancho Seco, 
as well as early component removal at Yankee Rowe and Trojan. The 
justification and intent of the final rule is unchanged. The NRC's 
primary concern, as the licensee transitions to decommissioning, is 
that the licensee will have sufficient funds to complete 
decommissioning and that the activities undertaken by the licensee will 
protect the public and the environment. The intent of this final rule 
is to streamline some of the decommissioning requirements for power 
reactor licensees, especially in approval of the decommissioning plan 
before major decommissioning activities can be undertaken and in early 
use of decommissioning trust funds.
    Specific issues addressed in the final rule are discussed in 
greater detail below.
    Issue 2--PSDAR, FSAR, and update requirements.
    Comments. Commenters in favor of the rule had various comments 
concerning the PSDAR, its required update, and the proposed update to 
the FSAR. Several commenters indicated that the PSDAR requirement 
should be eliminated because it is more stringent than requirements 
imposed on operating reactors, that the PSDAR should only require 
information (detailed schedule) pertaining to the current phase of 
decommissioning because dismantlement and site restoration may not 
occur for many years, that the word ``synopsis'' should be used to make 
it clear that the PSDAR is a high-level summary, and that there should 
be consistency in the criteria for assessing environmental impacts 
between the PSDAR and the proposed Sec. 50.59 requirements. A few 
comments suggested making the reporting requirements more efficient by 
combining them and updating the PSDAR and FSAR together, requiring 
updates no more than once every 36 months, or using a single PSDAR for 
multi-reactor sites. Several comments suggested that the updating 
requirement for the PSDAR be eliminated because Sec. 50.59 already 
requires annual reporting requirements, that the term ``significant'' 
used in the proposed Sec. 50.82(a)(6) should be tied to the Sec. 50.59 
safety evaluation, and that the extent of deviation in the PSDAR 
schedule that is permissible without notice to the NRC should be 
clarified. Finally, there was a comment that the final rule should make 
it clear that, if prompt decommissioning (dismantlement) is being 
pursued by the licensee, the PSDAR and license termination plan should 
be permitted to be the same document.
    Commenters not in favor of the rule did not specifically address 
Issue 2. However, those commenters believed that the current rule 
requirements should be followed and that an approved decommissioning 
plan should be required before a licensee is permitted to perform major 
decommissioning activities.
    Response. The purpose of the PSDAR is to provide a general overview 
for the public and the NRC of the licensee's proposed decommissioning 
activities until 2 years before termination of the license. The PSDAR 
is part of the mechanism for informing and being responsive to the 
public prior to any significant decommissioning activities taking 
place. It also serves to inform and alert the NRC staff to the schedule 
of licensee activities for inspection planning purposes and for 
decisions regarding NRC oversight activities. Because the final rule 
eliminates the need for an approved decommissioning plan before major 
decommissioning activities can be performed, the requirement to submit 
a PSDAR is less stringent than existing requirements for power reactor 
licensees.
    The information required to be in the PSDAR is less detailed than 
the information required in the FSAR. Therefore, the PSDAR should not 
be combined with the FSAR because the two documents have different 
purposes. The final rule requires a written notification if activities 
are anticipated that would be inconsistent with the PSDAR activities 
previously described. The licensee's consideration of such 
inconsistency would include any milestone scheduling changes of 
dismantlement tasks and significant increases in decommissioning costs 
from those described in the PSDAR. The final rule will explicitly 
include the requirement that activities that would result in 
significant increases to decommissioning costs from those presented in 
the PSDAR must be a consideration in the notification requirements of 
Sec. 50.82(a)(7). It is intended that regulatory guidance addressing 
the PSDAR Standard Format and Content will be issued soon after the 
final rule is published.
    Currently, FSAR updates are required annually or 6 months after a 
refueling outage provided the interval between updates does not exceed 
24 months. Because the FSAR is the basis for the use of Sec. 50.59, the 
updates will need to be timely, so the final rule specifies a 24-month 
FSAR update for decommissioning activities for those nuclear power 
reactor licensees that have submitted the certifications of permanent 
cessation of operation and permanent removal of the fuel from the 
reactor vessel.
    If prompt decommissioning is desired by the licensee, the licensee 
could elect early submittal of the PSDAR, before cessation of 
operation, and then use of Sec. 50.59 would be permitted at cessation 
of operation, provided the certification of permanent fuel removal from 
the reactor vessel has been received and the public meeting had been 
held in advance. Although the PSDAR and license termination plan serve 
different purposes, and a formal approval process is required of the 
latter, the PSDAR and license termination plan can be combined. If a 
licensee chooses to combine the PSDAR and the license termination plan, 
the requirements for both would apply to the combined document, 
including the requisite waiting period, public meeting, and approval by 
amendment of the license termination plan. The procedure for approval 
of a license termination plan is similar to that currently required for 
approval of a decommissioning plan. For a multi-reactor site, the PSDAR 
could address the activities for all the reactors at the site if 
decommissioning of each will be undertaken at the same time.
    Issue 3--Ninety-Day Time Period Prior to Undertaking Major 
Decommissioning Activities.
    Comment. Several commenters noted that the proposed 90-day waiting 
period before major decommissioning activities could be undertaken did 
not address a

[[Page 39282]]

health and safety concern and that there are potentially high costs 
associated with such a delay because licensees could do a lot of 
dismantlement during this time that would be more efficient and cost 
advantageous. These commenters emphasized that all activities could be 
carried out under Sec. 50.59 and the current licensing basis. They 
further stated that, if the 90-day hold is retained, clarification is 
needed regarding the NRC's opportunity to interpose an objection to 
proceeding with major decommissioning and that the NRC review should be 
based on areas of significant safety. Finally, one commenter expressed 
a concern that the 90-day waiting period would not allow enough time 
for public participation, including consideration of comments received 
from the public after NRC notices the licensee's PSDAR submittal and 
during a public meeting.
    Commenters not in favor of the rule did not specifically address 
Issue 3. However, those commenters believed that the current rule 
requirements should be followed and that an approved decommissioning 
plan should be required before a licensee is permitted to perform major 
decommissioning activities.
    Response. The commenters have correctly noted that the 90-day 
waiting period does not just address a health and safety issue. The NRC 
has chosen a 90-day waiting period prior to allowing major 
decommissioning activities to occur as the minimal time necessary for 
the NRC to evaluate the licensee's proposed activities and to conduct a 
public meeting. The public meeting is informational and may be chaired 
by a local official, with a presentation of the regulatory process for 
decommissioning by the NRC, presentation of planned decommissioning 
activities by the licensee, and participation by State representatives. 
A question and answer period would follow the presentations. By 
submitting the PSDAR before cessation of operation, a licensee could 
reduce the need for a waiting period (see the response to Issue 2 for 
an additional discussion on ways that the waiting period may be 
reduced).
    Issue 4--Proposed Rule Modifications to Sec. 50.59.
    Comment. Many commenters approved of some form of the proposed 
modifications to Sec. 50.59. Many of these commenters noted that 
Sec. 50.59(e) in the proposed rule is more stringent than the existing 
requirements for operating reactors. These commenters believed that the 
existing Sec. 50.59 criteria are adequate. Several commenters stated 
that the four proposed constraints contained in Sec. 50.59(e) are 
somewhat redundant to the proposed requirements in Sec. 50.82; the 
PSDAR content plus update and the 90-day waiting period envelopes 
issues addressed by these criteria. These commenters believed that if 
Sec. 50.59(e) criteria were kept they should be in a regulatory guide 
and not in a rule. Comments specific to the four criteria and why they 
should be eliminated follow.
    Section 50.59(e)(1)(i) concerning foreclosure of the site for 
unrestricted release. It was noted that any event that detracts from 
this effort would be accidental in nature, and that the proposed rule 
provided no explanation of the types of activities that could result in 
foreclosing the site for unrestricted use.
    Section 50.59(e)(1)(ii) concerning significantly increasing 
decommissioning costs. It was noted that cost estimate information is 
required prior to and through the decommissioning process, making this 
requirement unnecessary. Moreover, it was asserted that there is no 
logical correlation between the cost of a decommissioning activity and 
whether a license amendment should be required for that activity and 
that costs have never been a consideration in determining whether a 
proposed activity is consistent with the licensing basis for a plant. 
It was also noted that other regulatory bodies such as Public Utility 
Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as 
economic pressure, will force a licensee to perform decommissioning 
cost effectively. It was recognized that actions taken by a licensee 
may diminish the decommissioning fund and it was suggested that the 
wording be changed to deal with actions that would ``significantly 
inhibit the ability to fund decommissioning costs which would prevent 
successful decommissioning.''
    Section 50.59(e)(1)(iii) concerned environmental impacts not 
previously reviewed. It was noted that compliance with the operating 
license, technical specifications, and Sec. 50.59 regarding unreviewed 
safety questions adequately preclude having significant adverse 
environmental impact that have not been reviewed. Moreover, the 
requirement is redundant to the requirement concerning unreviewed 
environmental impacts required in the content of the PSDAR specified in 
Sec. 50.82.
    Section 50.59(e)(1)(iv) concerned violating the terms of the 
existing license. It was noted that this requirement is redundant with 
language in Sec. 50.59(a) that allows licensees to proceed with an 
activity so long as it does not violate technical specifications or 
constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined by 
Sec. 50.59(a)(2). Also, it was noted that a license amendment is 
required for changes in technical specifications under the current 
Sec. 50.59(c).
    Most commenters who opposed the use of proposed Sec. 50.59 were not 
in favor of the rule. One commenter stated that the analysis of the 
dismantlement activities proposed under Sec. 50.59 to determine whether 
or not the activity generates any unreviewed safety issue should be 
provided to the NRC, rather than rely on an NRC audit as existing 
regulations provide. This analysis would also provide this information 
to the public for examination. Several of the commenters indicated that 
an after-the-fact review of Sec. 50.59 activities would provide 
insufficient regulatory protection. Finally, a commenter stated that 
the presence of an NRC inspector is essential during decommissioning 
activities.
    Response. The Commission concluded that the proposed 
Sec. 50.59(e)(1)(iv) is redundant and should be eliminated from the 
final rule. The Commission reconsidered the need for the remaining 
Sec. 50.59(e)(1) requirements and determined that placing them in 
Sec. 50.82 would be more appropriate. The Commission also concluded 
that the requirement ensuring that no major decommissioning activities 
occur that would significantly increase decommissioning cost could be 
overly burdensome. Instead, an appropriate constraint would be to 
prohibit any decommissioning activities that result in there no longer 
being reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for 
decommissioning. However, the NRC needs to be aware of changes in 
decommissioning activities that would result in significantly 
increasing decommissioning costs and would require written notification 
of such intended actions. The other paragraphs in Sec. 50.59(e) were 
placed in Sec. 50.82(a) to ensure that they will be considered as 
overall constraints on the licensee's decommissioning activities, 
rather than separately for each contemplated activity as proposed in 
Sec. 50.59(e).
    The purpose of retaining these requirements is to ensure that no 
decommissioning activities can occur that result in: (1) Eliminating 
the potential for unrestricted release, (2) significant environmental 
impacts not previously considered in EISs, and (3) there no longer 
being reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for 
decommissioning. The basis for this final rule permitting the

[[Page 39283]]

use of Sec. 50.59 activities to perform decommissioning activities is 
that environmental impacts have already been considered and that such 
consideration was for an unrestricted release condition where the 
licensee has sufficient funds to complete decommissioning (see final 
generic environmental impact statement (FGEIS), NUREG-0586).1 The 
major considerations of licensee decommissioning activities that could 
significantly affect the environment are at the license termination 
stage when the licensee submits a license termination plan for 
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NUREG-0586, ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,'' USNRC, August 1988. 
Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the 
NRC Public Document Room 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), 
Washington, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (202) 634-3273; fax (202) 634-
3343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a licensee contemplates decommissioning activities that would 
violate these requirements, the licensee may not use the Sec. 50.59 
process delineated in this rule to perform the activities. The licensee 
would then be required to obtain a license amendment to perform the 
activities.
    The final rule prohibits licensees from performing any 
decommissioning activities that foreclose release of the site for 
possible unrestricted use, result in significant environmental impacts 
not previously reviewed, or result in there no longer being reasonable 
assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning 
(Sec. 50.82(a)(6)). Prior to the licensee's use of the Sec. 50.59 
process to perform major decommissioning activities, the PSDAR 
submittal and public information process must be completed. The 
licensee is required to include a discussion that provides the reasons 
for concluding that the environmental impacts that might occur during 
decommissioning activities have already been considered in site-
specific or generic environmental impact statements, and to estimate 
the amount of funds necessary to complete decommissioning (see 
Sec. 50.82(a)(4)).
    The licensee is also required to submit a site-specific cost 
estimate within 2 years after permanent cessation of operations. Use of 
decommissioning trust funds are subject to the requirements (in 
Sec. 50.82(a)(8)) that adequate funds will be available to ultimately 
release the site and terminate the license. Moreover, the final rule 
requires the licensee to notify the NRC in writing before performing 
any decommissioning activity inconsistent with, or making any 
significant schedule change from, those actions and schedules described 
in the PSDAR and states that this notification include consideration of 
significant increases in decommissioning costs (Sec. 50.82(a)(7)).
    The NRC intends to maintain an active inspection program to provide 
the requisite level of oversight of licensee activities during 
decommissioning. The PSDAR and any written notification of changes 
required of a licensee will be used to schedule NRC inspection 
resources for significant decommissioning activities.
    In addition to continuing requirements that the licensee must 
comply with, such as 10 CFR part 20, regarding protection of workers 
and the public from radiation, and appendix B to 10 CFR part 50 
regarding quality assurance, the final rule explicitly extends certain 
technical requirements to cover decommissioning activities (e.g., 
Secs. 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, and Appendix I regarding technical 
specifications for surveillance requirements, administrative controls, 
control of effluents, and conditions to protect the environment). Thus, 
there will be a licensing basis appropriate to the activities 
undertaken using the Sec. 50.59 process during decommissioning. By 
maintaining certain requirements throughout the decommissioning 
process, licensees will be able to use the existing Sec. 50.59 process 
to perform decommissioning activities and thus provide comparable 
assurance that protection of the public health, safety, and the 
environment will not be compromised.
    Issue 5--Environmental Impact Considerations During the Initial 
Phase of Decommissioning.
    Comments. Many commenters in favor of the rule fully supported the 
environmental impact considerations delineated in the proposed rule for 
the PSDAR submittal, with no mandatory ER or subsequent EA requirement. 
A few commenters suggested that no environmental impacts for 
decommissioning need be addressed further because the FGEIS for the 
1988 decommissioning rule (NUREG-0586, August 1988) \1\ and subsequent 
environmental assessments (for various actual power reactor 
decommissioning situations) demonstrate that decontamination and 
dismantlement do not significantly affect the human environment and 
have beneficial effects in restoring the site to an environmentally 
acceptable condition. A few commenters suggested that decommissioning 
should be considered a categorical exclusion as defined in 10 CFR 
51.22.
    Most of the commenters who were not in favor of the rule believed 
that the NRC should define decommissioning as a major Federal action 
requiring an EA or EIS. They further indicated that a generic 
environmental impact statement cannot substitute for a site-specific EA 
because the FGEIS does not consider all possibilities. A few of these 
commenters further stated that the proposed environmental impact 
consideration process is NRC's attempt to streamline the process for 
utilities and deregulate NRC current requirements. A few commenters 
stated that the process outlined in the proposed rule abdicates NRC's 
responsibility to protect the health and safety of the workers, the 
public, the environment, and it also undermines citizen's due process.
    Response. While the FGEIS (NUREG-O586) \1\ for the 1988 
decommissioning rule concluded that only minor negative environmental 
impacts would result from decommissioning in addition to substantial 
positive environmental impacts, it did not address site-specific 
situations that could differ from the assumptions used in the FGEIS 
analysis. However, it is expected that any site impacts will be minor. 
Any site impact should be bounded by the impacts evaluated by previous 
applicable GEISs as well as any site-specific EIS. To account for site-
specific situations that may occur outside these environmental impact 
considerations, the final rule prohibits major decommissioning 
activities that could result in significant environmental impacts not 
previously reviewed. The review process for the PSDAR and the approval 
process for the license termination plan requires licensees to review 
the existing documents and address any discrepancies in their 
submittals.
    The environmental assessment conducted for this rulemaking relied 
on the FGEIS for the decommissioning rule (NUREG-0586, August 1988) \1\ 
and determined that, insofar as the rule would allow major 
decommissioning activities (dismantlement) to proceed without an 
environmental assessment, application of the rule will not have a 
significant impact on the environment. Although not required by NEPA, 
NRC has required in this final rule that licensees indicate in the 
PSDAR the reasons for concluding that the planned activities are 
bounded by the FGEIS and previous site-specific environmental impact 
statements. This requirement is consistent with one of the primary 
goals of the PSDAR process, which is to promote public knowledge and 
provide an opportunity to hear public views on decommissioning 
activities before licensees commence decommissioning.

[[Page 39284]]

    At the license termination stage, the Commission must make 
decisions on the licensee-proposed actions described in the license 
termination plan. The Commission must consider:
    (1) The licensee's plan for assuring that adequate funds will be 
available for final site release,
    (2) Radiation release criteria for license termination, and
    (3) The adequacy of the final survey required to verify that these 
release criteria have been met.
    Therefore, the NRC has determined that submittal of the license 
termination plan should be treated as a license amendment. In addition, 
under 10 CFR part 51, an environmental assessment or impact statement 
would be required at the time the license is amended. Following 
resolution of another ongoing NRC rulemaking activity that is 
considering adoption of radiological release criteria, a categorical 
exclusion may be adopted that would eliminate the requirement for an 
environmental assessment or impact analysis, except in the case of a 
restricted release of a site.
    Issue 6--Public Participation.
    Comment. Most commenters supporting the rule commented on the 
public participation aspects of the proposed rule. They believed that 
the participatory role given to the public was appropriate, excessive, 
or in need of further clarification. Several questioned the need for 
expanded public participation on matters of public health and safety 
because the NRC regulatory framework already provides for such 
participation (e.g., license amendment process). These commenters also 
noted that the purpose of the public meeting following the PSDAR 
submittal was not properly explained and that the final rule should 
clearly state that the meeting is intended for exchange of information 
only. Many commenters indicated that the NRC should limit the scope of 
these meetings and hearings to issues that are related to health and 
safety during the decommissioning process. These commenters also 
indicated that the supplementary information should include a clear 
statement of the purpose and participation guidelines for these 
meetings and clearly identify NRC's role at these meetings (which 
should be significant). A comment stated that it is essential that 
adequate mechanisms be developed for addressing issues of concern 
raised by members of the public and that, absent such closure, the 
meeting would only compound frustrations felt by the interested public. 
Finally, there was a comment that the 90-day waiting period (after the 
submittal of the PSDAR to the NRC) before allowing licensees to 
undertake major decommissioning activities may not allow enough time 
for adequate public participation.
    Most commenters who did not favor the rule believed that the public 
participatory role proposed was inadequate. These commenters stated 
that NRC should retain the possession-only license amendment (POLA) and 
decommissioning plan approval required in the current rule to truly 
enhance public participation. Public meetings were considered helpful, 
but no substitute for an adjudicatory hearing that includes the rights 
to discovery, to present evidence, and to cross examine. Along these 
lines, a commenter stated that a meeting does not afford citizens the 
level of institutional accountability necessary, given the dangers of 
environmental-toxic contamination inherent in reactor decommissioning 
activities and that citizens must have a substantive role in the 
decommissioning process in order to clarify, negotiate, and protect 
their community's interest. A few commenters suggested that site-
specific advisory boards (SSABs) should be established early in the 
decommissioning process and that meaningful public involvement should 
be required at every stage of the decommissioning process, not only at 
the final termination stage.
    Response. As discussed previously, initial decommissioning 
activities (dismantlement) are not significantly different from routine 
operational activities such as replacement or refurbishment. Because of 
the framework of regulatory provisions embodied in the licensing basis 
for the facility, these activities do not present significant safety 
issues for which an NRC decision would be warranted. Therefore, it is 
appropriate that the licensee be permitted to conduct these activities 
without the need for a license amendment. However, the information 
meetings will be beneficial in keeping the public informed of the 
licensee's decommissioning activities. Although the primary purpose of 
these meetings is to inform the public of the licensee's planned 
activities, the NRC will consider public health and safety comments 
raised by the public during the 90-day period before the licensee 
undertakes decommissioning activities.
    A more formal public participation process is appropriate at the 
termination stage of decommissioning because the final disposition of 
the site is determined at that time. Under the current rule, the 
Commission issues an order permitting the reactor to be decommissioned, 
based on the approved decommissioning plan, which amends the license. 
NRC administrative procedures, in subpart G of 10 CFR part 2, now 
provide an opportunity for persons to request a hearing regarding the 
NRC's decision. A similar procedure will be followed in the final rule 
for the license termination plan once the licensee has permanently 
removed fuel from the site. However, the hearing will be less formal 
because it will follow the procedures in Subpart L of 10 CFR part 2. 
The role of the SSABs will be evaluated when the rulemaking regarding 
radiological release criteria for license termination is finalized.
    Issue 7--Establishment and Use of the Decommissioning Trust Fund.
    Most of the commenters on this issue were in favor of the rule. 
These commenters requested greater flexibility in what costs can be 
included in the fund, such as disposal costs of radioactive waste from 
plant operations, and greater flexibility in the use of the trust funds 
prior to and during decommissioning. Specific comments that reflect the 
full range of comments on financial issues are:
    Comment a. The proposed Sec. 50.82(a)(7) proposes to regulate a 
licensee's use of, and rate of withdrawal from, the decommissioning 
trust fund. While NRC oversight is warranted to ensure that 
decommissioning activities can be funded, regulating the rate of 
withdrawal from the trust fund may unnecessarily impede the efficiency 
of a licensee's decommissioning activities. Because the NRC's generic 
estimates of decommissioning costs are substantially lower than most 
recent site-specific cost estimates, licensees would be constrained to 
withdraw small fractions of an unrealistically low estimate.
    Response. Limiting initial withdrawals to 23 percent of the generic 
cost estimate (using the Sec. 50.75 requirements), until the licensee 
has submitted a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate, preserves 
the integrity of the decommissioning trust accounts. The final rule 
permits licensees to withdraw up to 3 percent of the generic formula 
amount for planning at any time during the decommissioning planning 
process, including planning that occurs while a plant is still 
operating. This amount should be ample based on current planning costs 
for licensees recently undergoing decommissioning. Likewise, allowing 
withdrawals of 20 percent of the generic amount for decommissioning 
activities would allow funding of certain activities before receipt of 
a site-specific cost estimate. This amount is consistent with costs of 
large component removal activities undertaken or contemplated by

[[Page 39285]]

licensees of shutdown plants (e.g., Yankee-Rowe and Trojan). Once the 
NRC has received the site-specific decommissioning cost estimate, a 
licensee would have access to the balance of trust fund monies for the 
remaining decommissioning activities. Because the timing of the 
submittal of a site-specific cost estimate is within the control of the 
licensee, the Commission believes that unwarranted restraints on access 
to funds are not imposed by the final rule.
    Comment b. The scope of decommissioning-related activities that 
licensees may collect funds for should include disposal of low-level 
waste generated during operations, maintenance and storage of spent 
fuel after cessation of operations, costs to maintain an independent 
spent fuel storage installation, and non-radioactive demolition or 
``greenfield.'' State Public Service Commissions and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission have authorized funding for these activities in 
some cases because it is in the best interests of the utilities' 
customers. The NRC regulation should not require segregation of these 
funds in separate accounts; restrictions on the withdrawal of trust 
funds in the proposed rule could lead utilities to create separate 
trust accounts for each nuclear facility funding component (e.g., 
decommissioning, spent fuel management, and greenfield). Finally, the 
rule should allow for the prudent and economic use, at the utility's 
discretion, of decommissioning trust funds during the years of normal 
plant operation even before end of life.
    Response. The NRC's authority is limited to assuring that licensees 
adequately decommission their facilities with respect to cleanup and 
removal of radioactive material prior to license termination. 
Radiological activities that go beyond the scope of decommissioning, as 
defined in Sec. 50.2, such as waste generated during operations or 
demolition costs for ``greenfield'' restoration, are not appropriate 
costs for inclusion in the decommissioning cost estimate. Funds for 
interim spent fuel storage and maintenance are addressed in 
Sec. 50.54(bb).
    The final rule does not prohibit licensees from having separate 
sub-accounts for other activities in the decommissioning trust fund if 
minimum amounts specified in the rule are maintained for radiological 
decommissioning.
    Comment c. Section 50.82(a)(7)(ii) of the proposed rule specifies 
that a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate must be submitted to 
the NRC prior to the licensee being permitted to use any funding in 
excess of previously stipulated amounts. This could be interpreted to 
mean that the NRC must approve the additional expenditures. If this 
paragraph is retained, the intent of this ``permitting'' should be made 
clear. Expenditures made in accordance with the PSDAR and the 
decommissioning cost estimate should not require any additional NRC 
authorization.
    Response. The NRC's intent in the proposed rule was not to use a 
formal approval mechanism for decommissioning expenditures once the 
licensee submits its site-specific decommissioning cost estimate. The 
final rule has been modified as suggested by the commenter.
    Comment d. More guidance should be provided regarding what 
constitutes a decommissioning ``planning'' expenditure. Changes in the 
proposed rule regarding expenditure of funds from the NRC Draft Policy 
Statement on use of decommissioning funds before decommissioning plan 
approval (59 FR 5216; February 3, 1994), should be more fully 
explained.
    Response. The term ``planning'' used in Sec. 50.82(a)(8)(ii) 
specifically means ``paper'' studies, not equipment removal. 
Percentages are used in the final rule rather than specific dollar 
amounts, as used in the Draft Policy Statement, to better allow for 
inflation of costs in the future. Other changes to the Draft Policy 
Statement are based on the response to comments, developed prior to 
this rulemaking activity, and presented in the section on the 
``Resolution of Comments on the Draft Policy Statement.''
    Comment e. If a plant shuts down early, not only will there be 
insufficient funds to pay for planned decommissioning (because not all 
payments will have been made), but the actual cost of decommissioning 
can be 2 to 3 times higher than planned. The NRC should require 
external funds in the amount necessary to complete decommissioning 
upfront. Moreover, the NRC does not have a procedure in place for 
``replacing'' a reactor licensee that goes bankrupt. Finally, the NRC 
should specifically allow the total financial approach to be made along 
the lines of industry self-insurance.
    Response. The revised regulations preserve the integrity of the 
decommissioning funds by tying the rate of expenditure to specific 
parts of the decommissioning process. At the same time they allow broad 
flexibility once a licensee submits its site-specific decommissioning 
cost estimate.
    The issue of bankruptcy, as well as the requirement for power 
reactor licensees to have the total amount of decommissioning funds 
upfront, was considered during the development of the current rule and 
found to be adequately addressed in current requirements. Bankruptcy 
does not necessarily mean that a power reactor licensee will liquidate. 
To date, the NRC's experience with bankrupt power reactor licensees has 
been that they file under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for 
reorganization, not liquidation (e.g., Public Service Company of New 
Hampshire, El Paso Electric Company, and Cajun Electric Cooperative). 
In these cases, bankrupt licensees have continued to provide adequate 
funds for safe operation and decommissioning, even as bondholders and 
stockholders suffered losses that were often severe. Because electric 
utilities typically provide an essential service in an exclusive 
franchise area, the NRC staff believes that, even in the unlikely case 
of a power reactor licensee liquidating, its service territory and 
obligations, including those for decommissioning, would revert to 
another entity without direct NRC intervention. However, the NRC 
believes that with electric utility deregulation becoming more likely, 
it may need to require additional decommissioning funding assurance for 
those licensees that are no longer able to collect full decommissioning 
costs in rates or set their own rates. Thus, the NRC proposed a 
rulemaking plan to, in part, evaluate these developments in SECY-95-223 
(September 1, 1995).
    Issue 8--Court decision.
    Comment. Most commenters who were in favor of the rule indicated 
that the proposed rule did not conflict with the recent court decision 
regarding the Yankee Rowe decommissioning (Citizens Awareness Network, 
Inc. v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995)). Most of the commenters who 
were not in favor of the rule believed that the proposed rule violated 
the court's decision, or the spirit of the decision, regarding Yankee 
Rowe.
    Response. A significant basis for the court's decision was that it 
perceived that the Commission had not adequately provided the reasoning 
for the NRC decision to allow decommissioning activities before NRC 
approval of a licensee-submitted decommissioning plan (59 F.3d at 291-
292), a decision that the court considered to be a modification of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations. The court noted that the 
Commission had failed to provide either a rulemaking proceeding or a 
hearing to address what the court perceived to be NRC approvals of 
licensee decommissioning activities (59 F.3d at 291-92, 294-95). By 
initiation of

[[Page 39286]]

a notice of proposed rulemaking and solicitation of comment (July 20, 
1995; 60 FR 37374), the Commission addressed the reasoning underlying 
the proposed decommissioning process and allowed public review and 
comment on that reasoning.
    The final rule includes a public notice and meeting process, 
prompted by the licensee's submission of a report describing planned 
decommissioning activities, to hear public views before the licensee 
undertakes major decommissioning activities. This process specifically 
provides that licensees may not begin major decommissioning activities 
until after they have submitted a PSDAR. The PSDAR will be made 
available to the public for written comment and a public meeting will 
be held to hear public views. Finally, the licensee is required to 
submit a license termination plan before release of the site. The final 
rule specifies that the license termination plan be approved by the NRC 
through the license amendment process. This process provides the public 
with hearing opportunities and ensures that any hearing on that plan 
must be completed prior to release of the site. This procedural 
framework assures that those citizens living near the site, potentially 
for years or decades after the facility is shut down, will be provided 
with information regarding the licensee's planned decommissioning 
activities, have an opportunity to ask questions regarding those 
activities at a public meeting early in the process, and have timely 
input into the decision to release the site.
    In its decision, the court also specifically addressed a concern 
about decommissioning activities taking place prior to any NEPA 
analysis (59 F.3d at 292-93). The final rule addresses this issue in 
several respects. First, the final rule explicitly prohibits the 
licensee from performing any major decommissioning activity that 
results in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed or 
forecloses possible unrestricted release of the site.
    Also, when the licensee submits the PSDAR, the licensee must 
specifically include a section discussing how the planned activities 
fit within the envelope of environmental effects included in either the 
FGEIS (NUREG-0586, August 1988) \1\ or the facility's site-specific 
environmental impact statement. Moreover, the licensee must provide 
written notification if the intended decommissioning activities are 
inconsistent with the PSDAR. This requirement helps ensure that, after 
submittal and public comment on the PSDAR, any changes to the planned 
decommissioning activities continue to be enveloped by the assessment 
of environmental impacts in prior environmental reviews. Any activities 
not meeting the environmental criteria would require the licensee to 
file an application for amendment to the license and a supplement to 
its environmental report under 10 CFR part 51. Finally, the rule 
requires a formal license termination plan by the licensee. The 
activities in the licensee's plan which do not meet the environmental 
criteria must be approved by the NRC by a license amendment that 
follows NRC procedures for amendments, including applicable hearing 
rights (under either subpart L or subpart G of 10 CFR part 2, as 
specified in the rule) and the preparation of environmental 
assessments.
    The court perceived that the agency ``approval'' of the expenditure 
of funds from the decommissioning funds may be a basis for triggering 
both NEPA reviews and hearing rights (59 F3d at 292-95). The final rule 
addresses this issue by providing generic guidance as to what 
expenditures can be made out of the decommissioning fund for 
decommissioning activities before submittal of a site-specific cost 
estimate. The revised regulations use generic criteria for expenditures 
from the decommissioning funds and do not require prior NRC approval of 
site-specific expenditures meeting the generic criteria (see 
Sec. 50.82(a)(7)). These new provisions specifically require licensees 
to maintain sufficient funds for release of the site and termination of 
the license. The licensee will have to also include an updated, site-
specific analysis of remaining costs in the license termination plan 
submittal.
    In publishing this final rule, the Commission has explained the 
rationale for the new decommissioning process, and has concluded that 
nothing in the court decision dictates that the Commission take a 
specific approach to this issue or otherwise raises questions 
concerning the validity of the approach adopted in this rulemaking.
    Issue 9--Definitions.
    Comment. Regarding the definitions in Sec. 50.2, a few commenters 
indicated that the definition of decommissioning should include the 
concept of restricted release to accommodate the proposed rulemaking on 
acceptable residual radioactive criteria for decommissioning. Several 
commenters noted that the definitions of ``major radioactive 
components'' and ``major decommissioning activities'' were unnecessary 
because the use of the existing Sec. 50.59 process does not require 
these considerations and is adequate to deal with decommissioning 
activities. However, if a definition of ``major radioactive 
components'' must be kept, the definition should only be relevant to 
any components, that when dismantled for shipment, contain greater than 
class C waste. During decommissioning activities, these waste disposals 
have the greatest significance regarding environmental impacts and 
adequate funding and are unrelated to the physical size of components.
    Response. When the residual radiation criteria rule is final, the 
definition of decommissioning in Sec. 50.2 will address use of the 
restricted release. It is necessary to have definitions of ``major 
radioactive components'' and ``major decommissioning activities'' to 
clarify what decommissioning activities may not occur before the end of 
the 90-day waiting period. However, the definition of ``major 
radioactive components'' in the final rule has been clarified so that 
large components, other than those named, are not prohibited Sec. 50.59 
activities if they contain small amounts of radioactivity. 
Dismantlement of these components is considered part of routine 
operating nuclear power reactor activities.
    Issue 10--Modifications to Specific Technical Requirements.
    Comment. Most of the commenters addressing this issue were in favor 
of the rule and indicated that there should be additional elimination 
or modification of requirements beyond those presented in the proposed 
rule. There was a spectrum of views on this issue: if a risk analysis 
were performed, it would demonstrate that the proposed rule would 
impose unnecessary burden on NRC licensees and NRC resources without 
commensurate benefit to health and safety; appropriate technical 
specifications for decommissioning would be for those activities for 
which there is a significant hazard; the final rule should include a 
discussion of the logic (i.e., philosophy) in making conforming 
revisions to part 50, especially with respect to provisions that did 
not change (e.g., Secs. 50.55a, 50.63, 50.72, and 50.73 applicability); 
the study and survey by the NRC concerning additional amendments for 
non-applicability should be completed before this rule is finalized 
(one commenter); and that the proposed rule appears geared to 
permanently shut down reactors with fuel onsite and does not 
differentiate among the aspects that apply once fuel is removed from 
the site, and the rule should consider such situations. Finally, one 
commenter requested that environmental qualifications remain in place 
for equipment important to safety

[[Page 39287]]

pertaining to spent fuel management and storage.
    Response. This rulemaking is primarily directed toward the 
procedural process for decommissioning, with particular emphasis on 
premature closure situations. The modifications to technical 
requirements in the final rule are based on a consequence analysis that 
either leads to elimination of the requirement or extends its 
applicability to decommissioning.
    The modifications to the technical requirements in the final rule 
are incomplete, as noted in the proposed rule, and as the information 
base continues to develop, additional rulemaking actions to modify 
other requirements will be conducted. In the interim, licensees that no 
longer have fuel onsite may continue to request exemption for specific 
requirements on a case-by-case basis. The information base will address 
the storage of high-density packaging of hot spent fuel in the spent 
fuel pool with special consideration given to potential radiological 
consequences that could occur from loss of coolant in the pool. 
Consideration for amending rule requirements is also being given to 
situations in which the fuel is in dry storage at an Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
    Comments on specific amendments were:
    Comment: Part 26. The final rule should explicitly state that the 
fitness for duty program does not apply to a permanently shut down and 
defueled facility. If it must apply, then it should apply to persons 
with unescorted access to the fuel storage building or buildings 
containing equipment necessary for the safe storage and handling of 
spent fuel.
    Response. Consideration of this issue is ongoing and may result in 
future rulemaking. However, until a decision is made, part 26 continues 
to be applicable.
    Comment: Section 50.36. Criteria are needed to ensure that 
technical specifications are appropriate for the conditions of a plant 
in a defueled state. The four criteria specified in Sec. 50.59(e) would 
be appropriate additional guidance.
    Response. Consideration will be given at a later time to the 
development of additional guidance in the form of standardized 
technical specifications for decommissioning. However, licensees may 
apply for modification of their technical specifications on a case-by-
case basis.
    Comment: Section 50.36 (c)(6) and (e). These requirements, which 
appear to imply that a new set of technical specifications will be 
developed for the plant decommissioning phase, are redundant and should 
be eliminated because Sec. 50.51(b)(2), the requirement to conduct 
activities in accordance with the specific part 50 license for the 
facility, is sufficient to ensure effectiveness of the technical 
specifications.
    Response. As a reactor facility transitions from operational to 
decommissioning status, numerous changes to technical specifications 
are expected. The regulatory experience with revisions to the technical 
specifications during this transition period has entailed case-specific 
evaluations of individual licensee requests. This has resulted in some 
inconsistency and variability of expectations among shutdown reactor 
facility license requirements. This revision provides the basis for 
developing a consistent framework for the development of ``standardized 
technical specifications for decommissioning,'' as well as addresses 
the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the existing regulation 
to permanently shutdown reactors. Section 50.51 specifically addresses 
the continued effectiveness of expired licenses and limitation of 
licensee actions during any continued effectiveness period. As such, 
Sec. 50.51 does not, nor is it intended to, provide specific license 
conditions and requirements. Section 50.36 addresses this issue.
    Comment: Section 50.36a(a)(1). This requirement should be clarified 
and revised because radioactive waste systems will have to be removed 
prior to license termination, and the present wording appears to 
require that these systems be used and maintained. Moreover, temporary 
systems are typically used for effluent treatment and the rule should 
be modified to describe only those systems that are appropriate.
    Response. Section 50.36a(a)(1) is intended to ensure that operating 
procedures for any waste treatment systems used to control effluents be 
maintained and used to existing release criteria, and not that the 
systems be used and maintained when no longer necessary. However, in 
response to the comment, Sec. 50.36a(a)(1) has been modified from the 
proposed rule so that systems that are no longer necessary can be 
eliminated from compliance requirements.
    Comment: Section 50.47. A defueled plant that has ceased operation 
warrants a material reduction in the scope of its offsite emergency 
planning requirements because the credibility of any offsite 
consequences are reduced. Beyond the spent fuel pool, there is not 
sufficient source term to justify emergency plans. This also pertains 
to appendix E to part 50 and the requirements in Sec. 50.54(t) 
concerning periodic review (frequency and scope) of the licensee's 
emergency preparedness program.
    Response. Consideration of the potential radiological consequences 
of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still 
ongoing. Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed 
at a later time.
    Comment: Section 50.48. While some commenters agreed with the 
concept of a fire protection plan through the end of decommissioning, 
one found the proposed language overly restrictive, vague, and 
ambiguous. This commenter stated that once the permanently removed 
spent fuel is certified to no longer be a fire protection concern, an 
industrial fire protection program could be adequate in most cases. 
Several other commenters noted that there are other ongoing NRC 
activities to improve current fire protection regulations, and if 
actions are taken now, they should only be based on ``significant 
hazards'' considerations.
    Response. These modified requirements have been coordinated with 
ongoing NRC activities regarding the improvement of fire protection 
regulations. Also, see the response to Sec. 50.47 regarding spent fuel 
considerations. As presently configured, fire protection regulations 
apply only to operating reactor facilities. The need for an ongoing 
fire protection program, albeit a modified one, remains after the 
facility has ceased reactor operations. The final rule provides a 
performance-based program that can readily be modified during the 
decommissioning process to address residual hazards.
    Comment: Section 50.49. Electric equipment required for protection 
of spent fuel outside the reactor does not meet the definition of 
equipment defined by Sec. 50.49(b). The discussion in the final rule 
should be corrected to note that the environmental qualifications 
regulations apply to selected safety and non-safety related equipment 
as described in Sec. 50.49(b).
    Response. No modifications to the proposed rule are necessary. 
However, the environmental qualifications regulations apply to selected 
safety and non-safety related equipment as described in Sec. 50.49(b).
    Comment : Section 50.51. Section 50.51(b) should be deleted because 
it is redundant. If it is kept, the requirements on the continuation of 
a license should be clarified to affirm that other operating reactors 
would be unaffected

[[Page 39288]]

when the operating license of one reactor has been terminated at a 
multi-reactor site. Section 50.51(b)(1) should be clarified to indicate 
that, at sites that have an intervening reuse but do not require 
decontamination to unrestricted release, decontamination would not need 
to occur until the end of the reuse period.
    Response. Section 50.51(b) is not redundant and will not be 
deleted. This section in the final rule has been modified to clarify 
that an expired license for a nuclear reactor facility that has 
permanently ceased operations is not terminated until the Commission 
terminates it. This provision further clarifies what conditions prevail 
under such circumstances. At a multi-reactor site, each reactor is 
individually licensed and actions are applied accordingly. The final 
rule addressing the radiological criteria for decommissioning will 
address the issue of restricted release options. Under the proposed 
rule, such restrictions would have to ensure that members of the 
public, in the event the restrictions fail, would not receive a dose in 
excess of 100 mrem per year. Unless the facility remained under 
license, individuals having access to the facility would be considered 
members of the public.
    Comment: Section 50.54(g). The antitrust law requirements for a 
reactor that has permanently ceased operations and permanently defueled 
should be reevaluated for applicability.
    Response. Section 50.54(g) simply provides that the issuance of an 
NRC license does not relieve the licensee from compliance with the 
antitrust laws specified in Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act, and 
that the NRC may take appropriate action, including suspension or 
revocation of the license, if a court finds the licensee to have 
violated any provisions of such antitrust laws. This subsection of the 
regulation is sufficiently flexible that there is no reason to modify 
or delete it with respect to a facility that has ceased operations or 
is permanently defueled.
    Comment: Paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) of Sec. 50.54. The 
requirement for licensed operators should be eliminated or reduced 
because reactivity changes can only occur during the initial stages of 
decommissioning in connection with repositioning fuel assemblies in the 
spent fuel pool. With reference to Sec. 50.54(i), the scope of the 
operator requalification program and limitations on a licensee's 
freedom to modify it should be reduced at facilities undergoing 
decommissioning.
    Response. Consideration of these issues is ongoing and may result 
in future rulemaking.
    Comment: Section 50.54(w). Onsite property damage insurance for a 
facility undergoing decommissioning should be eliminated or 
substantially modified.
    Response. Consideration of the potential radiological consequences 
of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still 
ongoing. Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed 
at a later time.
    Comment: Section 50.55a. Pertaining to codes and standards 
requirements, it should be noted that Secs. 50.55a (a), (f), and (g), 
inservice testing requirements, do not apply to permanently defueled 
reactors because the plant is not operating and there is no need to 
apply the regulation.
    Response. No change is necessary because these requirements provide 
assurance that relevant portions of the facility are maintained 
functional or operational to adequate standards so they are 
operationally capable.
    Comment: Section 50.63. The requirements on the loss of all ac 
power should not apply to decommissioning because the potential for 
significant radiological consequences is very low (there is a low 
probability of incident and long recovery time).
    Response. Consideration of the potential radiological consequences 
of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still 
ongoing. Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed 
at a later time.
    Comment: Section 50.65. Monitoring maintenance for a permanently 
shutdown and defueled facility on any of its structures, systems, or 
components (SSC) to levels required by the current maintenance rule is 
unnecessary. Permanently shutdown and defueled facilities can no longer 
experience the levels of mechanical stresses associated with an 
operating plant. Therefore, the industry interprets the proposed rule 
to mean that the maintenance program only applies to the safe storage 
of fuel. The relative risks from a shutdown plant allow requirements in 
existing technical specifications and other administrative programs to 
provide adequate assurance for safe fuel storage.
    Response. The maintenance rule, Sec. 50.65, requires that the 
performance or condition of all structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) described in Sec. 50.65(b) be included in the scope of the rule. 
Under the current rule, licensees are permitted flexibility in the 
goals that are established and the monitoring that is performed for 
these SSCs. The NRC agrees that the stresses on most SSCs in an 
operating plant are greater than those associated with a shutdown and 
defueled plant. The final rule allows the scope to be limited to those 
SSCs associated with the storage, control, and maintenance of spent 
fuel in a safe condition in a manner that provides reasonable assurance 
that the SSCs are capable of performing their intended function.
    Comment: Section 50.72. The immediate notification requirements for 
operating nuclear power reactors should not apply to permanently 
defueled reactors or, if applicable, should be significantly modified. 
Regarding Sec. 50.72(a)(i), there should be no requirement to use the 
Emergency Notification System or Emergency Response Data Systems.
    Response. The NRC did not adopt this comment. Notification 
requirements for events such as abnormal releases and overexposures are 
examples of required reports that are necessary.
    Comment: Section 50.111. Criminal penalties should not be imposed 
for decommissioning activities because they are not so important to 
public health and safety that licensees need be subject to them. 
Decommissioning activities for reactor licensees should not be treated 
any differently than for other radioactive material licensees.
    Response. The Commission believes that certain actions are 
essential in initiating the decommissioning process (e.g., certifying 
to permanent cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from 
the reactor vessel, and submitting a PSDAR) and should, therefore, be 
treated as substantive with respect to the criminal penalty provisions 
of the Atomic Energy Act. Decommissioning actions, when initiated 
improperly, have a potential for significant consequences regarding 
health, safety, and the environment. Willful violations of, attempted 
violations of, or conspiracy to violate, Sec. 50.82 would, therefore, 
be a matter of significant concern to the NRC. Thus, the NRC is 
retaining the addition of Sec. 50.82 to the list of regulations to 
which criminal sanctions apply.
    Comment: Section 140.11. Concerning Price Anderson financial 
protection, permanently shutdown and defueled facility licensees should 
be permitted to withdraw from the secondary financial protection layer, 
and single units should be given a reduction in the primary level of 
coverage (e.g., $100,000,000).
    Response. Consideration of the potential radiological consequences 
of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still 
ongoing. Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed 
at a later time, as will considerations of fuel stored in an ISFSI.
    Issue 10--Termination of License Requirements.

[[Page 39289]]

    Most of the commenters in favor of the rule supported the 
decommissioning requirements for termination of the license in the 
proposed rule. However, several of these commenters stated that 
approval of the license termination plan should not require an 
amendment or opportunity for a hearing. They believe that if the plan 
is made available for public comment, existing regulations provide 
ample opportunity for public participation and the AEA does not require 
a hearing. Another commenter noted that once the spent fuel is off the 
site, the hazard is reduced so there is no safety, technical, or legal 
basis for NRC approval of a detailed decommissioning plan or PSDAR. A 
commenter pointed out that the use of the proposed Sec. 50.59, which 
includes the four criteria (Sec. 50.59(e)), addresses the unique 
circumstances associated with the decommissioning activities. If some 
activities do not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 50.59 and a license 
amendment is required, interested parties would have an opportunity to 
request a hearing. The approval of the plan by amendment and the 
opportunity for a hearing are not for reasons of health and safety; 
moreover, any interested party could always petition for a hearing 
under Sec. 2.206. Another commenter made similar comments and went even 
further in stating that if standards for radioactive release are clear, 
meeting the objective of terminating the license should be easily 
demonstrated without the need for approval of a plan or license 
amendment; and that the plan should be available to the NRC for 
information only.
    Response. The requirement for submittal of a termination plan is 
retained in the final rule because the NRC must make decisions, 
required in the current rule on the decommissioning plan, regarding (1) 
the licensee's plan for assuring that adequate funds will be available 
for final site release; (2) radiation release criteria for license 
termination, and (3) adequacy of the final survey required to verify 
that these release criteria have been met. A public meeting is 
considered necessary at the license termination stage to inform the 
public about the licensee's proposed termination activities and to 
provide an opportunity for public comment on those proposed activities. 
The NRC has also made the determination that license termination is an 
action of sufficient significance as to warrant an opportunity for a 
public hearing on NRC's decision regarding the licensee's proposed 
termination activities.
    Specific comments concerning the license termination plan were 
provided by several commenters.
    Comment a. The timing of the license termination plan is not 
explicit in the proposed rule, Sec. 50.82(a)(8), and it is not clear 
whether the rule permits dismantlement activities before submittal or 
approval of the license termination plan.
    Response. The final rule permits dismantlement activities 90 days 
after PSDAR submittal unless the NRC interposes an objection. The 
license termination plan must be submitted within 2 years of the 
licensee's expected date of license termination (the date specified in 
the PSDAR or supplement).
    Comment b. The NRC does not explain or support the need for the 
elements of the plan, discussed in proposed Sec. 50.82(a)(8)(ii) (A)-
(G). The current rule, under Sec. 50.82(d), simply requires updated, 
detailed plans before the start of decommissioning.
    Response. The final rule permits major decommissioning activities 
(dismantlement) to be performed using the Sec. 50.59 process. Because a 
decommissioning plan is no longer required, the requirements for the 
license termination plan are less complex than those that are currently 
required for a decommissioning plan. The license termination plan 
provides documentation on the remaining activities necessary to 
terminate the license and includes consideration of remediation aspects 
that could involve license termination under either unrestricted or 
restricted release conditions (once the rulemaking on acceptable 
residual release criteria is final). The site characterization, 
description of the remaining dismantlement activities and plans for 
site remediation are necessary for the NRC to be sure that the licensee 
will have adequate funds to complete decommissioning and that the 
appropriate actions will be completed by the licensee to ensure that 
the public health and safety will be protected. The language of 
Sec. 50.82(8)(a)(ii) (B) and (F) in the proposed rule, now 
Sec. 50.82(a)(9)(ii) (B) and (F) in the final rule, has been changed to 
more clearly reflect the intent of these requirements. Thus, element 
(A) now requires identification of remaining dismantlement activities, 
and element (F) now requires an updated site-specific estimate of 
remaining decommissioning costs.
    Comment c. One commenter questioned how multiple sites will be 
addressed. Another commenter stated that a single license termination 
plan should be encouraged for multi-reactor sites.
    Response. Reactors at a multi-reactor site are individually 
licensed and licensing actions are applied to the individual licenses. 
A licensee would not be prohibited from submitting a single license 
termination plan for the multi-reactor site, but the NRC would address 
terminating each license separately.
    Issue 11--License Termination: Additional comments.
    Comment. A commenter stated that the need for a hearing when the 
licensee submits the license termination plan for approval should be 
reconsidered. If the licensee meets the requirements of the termination 
plan and applicable regulations, there would be no issues to 
adjudicate. Another commenter stated that, concerning the subpart L 
proceedings, the NRC should issue a clear statement of policy to 
eliminate the potential for significant litigation. Several commenters 
stated that if subpart L is to be used for hearings, it appears 
necessary to change the title of subpart L to include Part 50 
licensees. Finally, a commenter stated that the applicability of 
Subpart L hearings should be incorporated into Sec. 2.700 as well as 
Sec. 2.1201.
    Response. With respect to the termination plan, the Commission 
recognizes that ongoing rulemaking proceedings may result in 
establishing criteria for the restricted release of sites. Even if a 
hearing is not legally mandated at the termination stage as argued by 
some commenters, the Commission views it as appropriate to use the 
amendment process for approval of termination plans, including the 
associated opportunity for a hearing, to allow public participation on 
the specific actions required for license termination. In particular, 
the Commission has determined that, if a hearing is requested on the 
termination plan, the hearing must be completed before release of the 
site. This action will help ensure meaningful public input on any 
proposal for restricted release of the site. Given that a lengthy 
period (up to 60 years) may pass between the PSDAR stage and the 
termination stage, and given that final release criteria are still 
being developed that may include restricted release of a site, the 
Commission views a license amendment process as appropriate, along with 
the associated opportunity for a hearing, whether or not such hearings 
are mandated by legislation. Finally, the changes proposed by the 
commenters concerning the change of title of subpart L to include part 
50 licensees and the incorporation of

[[Page 39290]]

subpart L applicability into Secs. 2.700 and 2.1201 are unnecessary 
because the rule already addresses these considerations.
    Comment. Many commenters expressed confusion on when a subpart L or 
subpart G hearing would be appropriate. One commenter noted that once 
fuel is out of the reactor vessel and in dry storage, there is no 
difference between storage on or off site and that reference to the 
subpart G hearing should be deleted. Another commenter wanted a 
clarification of what is meant by removing fuel from the site (i.e., 
under a part 72 license). Another commenter suggested that the wording 
to Sec. 2.1201(a)(3) be clarified concerning permanent removal of fuel 
from the site to an authorized facility. One commenter inquired as to 
whether a license could be terminated if the licensee removed the fuel 
to an onsite ISFSI.
    Response. The final rule clearly indicates that once the fuel is 
removed from the licensed part 50 facility the power reactor facility 
can be treated as a materials facility where a subpart L hearing is 
appropriate. If fuel remains at the facility, a subpart G hearing is 
appropriate. If the fuel is in an ISFSI, that part of the affected site 
is regulated under a part 72 license and would no longer be regulated 
under the part 50 license. The wording in Sec. 2.1201(a)(3) has been 
changed to ``removal of fuel from the part 50 facility,'' rather than 
``from the site,'' and means either removal offsite to an authorized 
facility or to an onsite facility (ISFSI) not under the part 50 
license.
    Comment. Many commenters did not see the need for an environmental 
review at the license termination stage, and one suggested that it be 
considered a categorical exclusion. Another commenter stated that if 
there were to be an environmental review, its scope should be 
restricted to whether the licensee's controls and methods for 
mitigation of radiation will meet the standards adopted in Sec. 20.1405 
of the proposed residual radiation criteria rule.
    Response. At the license termination stage, an environmental 
assessment or impact statement will be required when the license is 
amended. Following resolution of another ongoing NRC rulemaking 
activity that is considering adoption of radiological release criteria, 
a categorical exclusion may be adopted that would eliminate the 
requirement for an environmental assessment or impact analysis, except 
in the case of a restricted release of a site.
    Comment. A few comments addressed proposed changes to Sec. 51.53 
concerning requirements for environmental impact considerations. One 
commenter stated that the first sentence of the first paragraph of 
Sec. 51.53(b) should be deleted to be consistent with the concept that 
``a license amendment authorizing decommissioning activities'' is no 
longer required. Revised wording should begin with ``each applicant for 
a license amendment approving a license termination plan or 
decommissioning plan.'' Another commenter stated that Sec. 51.53 should 
be revised to reflect the fact that the proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not require an amendment that authorizes the conduct of 
decommissioning activities, because neither the existing nor the 
proposed decommissioning process requires a license amendment to 
approve a decommissioning plan. Therefore the first paragraph of this 
section should be reworded as ``[E]ach applicant for license 
termination upon submittal of the license termination plan under 
Sec. 50.82 of this chapter either for unrestricted use or based on 
continuing use restrictions applicable to the site, * * * shall submit 
* * *'' A similar change was stated to be needed in Sec. 51.95 for the 
same reasons. Finally, a commenter noted that Sec. 51.53(b) as well as 
Sec. 51.95(b) refer to ``applicants * * * for a utilization facility,'' 
which does not seem to be an element of the proposed rule and should be 
deleted; also, Sec. 51.95(b) does not mention approval of a license 
amendment for license termination or a decommissioning plan, which is 
an omission and should be consistent with Sec. 51.53(b).
    Response. No change was made to this section because the non-power 
reactor facilities are still required to submit a decommissioning plan. 
For non-power reactors, the current rule remains essentially unchanged 
and requires submittal of a decommissioning plan that is approved 
through license amendment. The non-power reactor licensee must also 
submit an appropriate supplemental environmental report and the NRC 
must do an EA as part of the decommissioning plan approval process.
    Comment. Most of the commenters who were not in favor of the rule 
supported the license termination phase requirements but believe that 
these requirements were not timely and should be implemented in some 
manner at the initiation phase of decommissioning.
    Response. During the initial phase of decommissioning, the 
requirements in the final rule are designed to provide oversight 
commensurate with the level of safety concerns experienced in 
decommissioning, while providing additional opportunity for public 
comment on the licensee's proposed activities. The final rule 
requirements are based on NRC's experience with licensees' use of the 
Sec. 50.59 process during operations and consideration of the types of 
activities that licensees would undertake during the decommissioning 
process. Where appropriate, licensing requirements are continued 
through decommissioning and the NRC is informed of each licensee's 
planned decommissioning activities. (Additional discussion can be found 
in the response to Comment 5).
    Issue 12--Regulatory Guides.
    Comment. Several commenters requested regulatory guidance in the 
form of regulatory guides. These requests pertained to a standard 
format and content for the PSDAR and license termination plan as well 
as to transition guidance for licensees who are shut down and choose to 
adopt the new process. Additional guidance was also requested for a 
regulatory guide that dealt with the decommissioning process, such as a 
revision to Regulatory Guide 1.86, ``Termination of Operating Licenses 
for Nuclear Reactors,'' that would include such topics as the objective 
and implementation aspects of public meeting and hearings, guidance on 
issues the NRC would consider in not giving negative consent approval 
to the PSDAR after the 90-day waiting period, guidance on 
interpretation and development of technical rule requirements, and 
guidance, on the particulars of ``grandfathering.'' Additionally, 
several commenters requested additional financial guidance, through a 
regulatory guide, on the development and use of the decommissioning 
trust fund.
    Response. The NRC intends to issue regulatory guidance on the 
initial phase of decommissioning. Guidance on the standard format and 
content of the PSDAR will be issued after the final rule is published. 
Other guidance on the license termination phase is also being 
developed.
    Issue 13--Elimination of the Possession-only License Amendment 
(POLA).
    Comment. Generally, commenters in favor of the rule agreed with 
eliminating the POLA. Objections to POLA elimination from other 
commenters were that distinct categories between reactor operation and 
cessation of operation should be maintained and that eliminating the 
POLA process would eliminate a hearing opportunity prior to reactor 
decommissioning. Reflecting the views of many commenters against POLA 
elimination, a State commenter said that by deleting

[[Page 39291]]

the POLA the NRC would eliminate the amendment process that expressly 
provides for State consultation (Sec. 50.91(b)) and that no subpart G 
hearing process would occur that would allow for discovery by parties 
to the proceeding and provide a mechanism for intervention. The State 
commenter held that the proposed rule delays the need for amendment to 
the license termination stage when it is too late; it is needed before 
major decommissioning activities are undertaken. Moreover, at the 
license termination stage, only a subpart L hearing is proposed (no 
discovery). Finally, a few commenters asked why non-power reactors, 
which are less hazardous facilities (smaller and less contaminated), 
can still request a POLA and still require decommissioning plan 
approval while power reactors no longer have this option or 
requirement.
    Response. If fuel is removed from the licensed part 50 facility, 
the activities undertaken during decommissioning are more like the 
kinds of activities undertaken at a typical materials facility where 
the subpart L process applies. The final rule requires that certain 
procedures be satisfied before a licensee can perform major 
decommissioning activities. These procedures include requiring a PSDAR 
submittal, conducting a public meeting, and allowing a specified time 
period for NRC review of the licensee's intended actions. Other final 
rule requirements prohibit the licensee from performing any major 
decommissioning activity that could result in significant environmental 
impacts not previously reviewed or foreclose the release of the site 
for unrestricted use. Written notification to the NRC is required for 
licensee decommissioning activities that are inconsistent with those 
described in the PSDAR, including significant changes in 
decommissioning costs. Finally, the final rule extends certain 
regulatory requirements to decommissioning. Thus, licensee activities 
that would require approval under a POLA are no longer necessary. The 
affected State(s) will be notified about the public information meeting 
as well as consulted on the licensee's planned decommissioning 
activities by the NRC prior to the public meeting. The final rule 
requires that a copy of the PSDAR and any written notification of 
inconsistent PSDAR activities be sent to the affected State(s). In 
response to the comment concerning why non-power reactors are still 
given the option of submitting a POLA and still require a 
decommissioning plan, it is noted that such reactors are required to 
immediately dismantle, except for extenuating circumstances, and are 
not permitted a storage period (because there is no significant health, 
safety or environmental reason for delay--see FGEIS, NUREG 0586).\1\
    Issue 14--``Grandfathering'' Considerations.
    Comment. There were several commenters who were concerned that the 
proposed rule did not significantly address nor provide necessary 
guidance for ``grandfathering'' issues. Specific comments in this area 
were that recognition should be given to those plants whose 
decommissioning plans have been approved on a case-by-case basis; that 
if existing facilities are grandfathered from any part of the proposed 
rule, it should clearly identify this; that the proposed rule does not 
adequately implement the grandfathering option because the current 
Sec. 50.82 would disappear from the rule and no explicit provisions 
would exist to rely on. It is suggested that the NRC keep the old 
provision as well as an applicable alternative and; that for 
grandfathering, an implementation provision should be added to the rule 
in a fashion similar to Sec. 20.1008. Several commenters also noted 
that guidance needs to be given to those licensees who are in various 
aspects of decommissioning based on the current rule requirements and 
wish to switch to the proposed rule requirements.
    Response. The Commission has reconsidered the issue of 
``grandfathering'' and modified the language in the final rule to 
provide more specific guidance for nuclear power reactor licensees 
whose facilities are currently at certain stages of decommissioning. 
The Commission has decided to eliminate the provision in the proposed 
rule that would give those licensees that have an NRC approved 
decommissioning plan, before the date when a final rule became 
effective, the option of either complying with the final rule 
requirements or continuing with the requirements of the currently 
existing rule. All licensees will be required to comply with the 
decommissioning procedures specified in the provisions of the final 
rule, when it becomes effective. The final rule addresses the process 
for converting from the existing rule requirements to those in the 
final rule for those nuclear power reactor licensees whose facilities 
are already at certain stages of decommissioning.
    For power reactor licensees who, before the effective date of this 
final rule, either submitted a decommissioning plan for approval or 
possess an approved plan, the plan will be considered as the PSDAR 
submittal and the licensee will be required to perform decommissioning 
in conformance with these final rule requirements. However, for power 
reactor licensees who are involved in subpart G hearings of 10 CFR part 
2, conversion to the new rule will not be permitted until the hearing 
process is completed. The public meeting and 90-day hold on 
decommissioning activities required in Sec. 50.82(a) (4)(ii) and (5) 
will not apply. Those licensees will be subject to any orders arising 
from these subpart G hearings, absent any orders from the Commission.
    For nuclear power reactor facility licensees whose licenses have 
been modified, before the effective date of this rule, to allow 
possession but not operation of the facility, the certifications 
required in Sec. 50.82(a)(1) will be considered to have been submitted.
    With regard to extending current rule requirements for 
``grandfathering'' considerations, no current rule requirements need be 
retained because the ``grandfathering'' provision in the proposed rule 
has been eliminated in the final rule. The final rule covers conversion 
from the existing requirements for approval of a submitted or approved 
decommissioning plan, as described above, and is specific to existing 
licensee decommissioning plan situations.
    Issue 15--Miscellaneous Comments.
    Comment. Several commenters stated that the backfit rule, 
Sec. 50.109, should apply to decommissioning because a proper reading 
of the intent of that rule should cover rulemaking dealing with 
decommissioning. Otherwise, additional requirements could be imposed 
without a benefit cost analysis.
    Response. The Commission has concluded that the provisions 
addressed in this rulemaking do not involve a backfit because they 
address only reactors that have permanently ceased operations and 
Sec. 50.109 only applies to design, construction and operation of a 
facility. These regulations are primarily procedural in nature and, to 
the extent they address nonprocedural matters, they are a codification 
of existing process.
    Comment. A few commenters noted that the regulatory analysis for 
the proposed rule did not evaluate the alternatives to the proposed new 
regulatory requirements and existing requirements do not require a 
license termination plan or a license amendment to approve a license 
termination plan. The regulatory

[[Page 39292]]

analysis does not accomplish the objective of ensuring that all 
regulatory burdens are needed, justified, and minimal.
    Response. The regulatory analysis did evaluate the alternatives to 
the proposed new regulatory requirements. The license termination plan 
is not a new requirement because, under the existing rule, licensees 
are required to submit a proposed decommissioning plan for approval 
within 2 years of permanent shutdown. Currently, licensees who plan to 
delay decommissioning by including a period of storage must submit a 
final decommissioning plan for approval before starting 
decommissioning. Current NRC policy is to approve the decommissioning 
plan by license amendment. Because the proposed rule would permit the 
licensee use of the Sec. 50.59 process to perform major dismantlement 
activities, the license termination plan is less complex than a 
decommissioning plan and covers the remainder of activities requiring 
completion to terminate the license, other than dismantlement 
activities. The changes adopted in the rulemaking primarily provide 
additional flexibility to licensees that reduces burden without 
reducing safety by allowing licensees to undertake the majority of 
decommissioning activities without first obtaining NRC approval.
    Comment. Several commenters wanted the option of entombment to be 
allowed because restricted release will be allowed when the residual 
radiation criteria rule is final. Aside from the difficulty of 
disposal, the money not spent on LLW burial is substantial. The 
interest on this money would be more than adequate to provide for the 
maintenance and surveillance required for the entombment option. The 
public, including local communities, may be interested in not 
transporting waste across state boundaries and in keeping funds that 
would otherwise be spent on disposal within the community.
    Response. The issue of entombment was not addressed in this rule. 
The NRC position on entombment is the same as in the current rule. 
Entombment would only be permitted for very special circumstances but 
would involve a continued license on a case-by-case basis. The concept 
of restricted release included in the proposed rule on residual 
radiation criteria would involve termination of the license with 
restrictions in place to limit the use of the facility by the public, 
but certain radiological criteria for restricted release would have to 
be met.
    Comment. Several individual commenters wanted to know whether NRC 
rules allow the optional period of storage of the reactor facility to 
be longer than 60 years and does the 60-year completion date for 
decommissioning specified in the current rule consider storage of fuel 
in an ISFSI. One commenter stressed that spent fuel should not be 
separated from any of the phases of decommissioning because this is a 
piecemeal approach and inappropriate. Another commenter stated that the 
licensee should be required to maintain capability to handle the fuel 
for dry cask storage.
    Response. The primary considerations of the proposed rule were 
procedural, with emphasis on the issue of premature closure. Other 
aspects of the existing rule were unchanged. A 60-year period for 
completion of decommissioning is still imposed, subject to other 
considerations delineated in the current rule requirements. The 
existing rule, as well as the proposed rule, consider the storage and 
maintenance of spent fuel as an operational consideration and provide 
separate part 50 requirements for this purpose. Regarding maintaining 
the capability to handle the fuel for dry cask storage, these 
requirements are maintained in 10 CFR part 72.
    Comment. Several commenters noted that the requirements of this 
proposed rule and the proposed residual radiological criteria rule 
should be coordinated to avoid redundancy.
    Response. The two rules will be coordinated.
    Comment. A few commenters noted that a complete site 
characterization should be included at the initiation of 
decommissioning activities and that mandatory site radiological surveys 
should be required before issuing a new license to establish background 
conditions.
    Response. These considerations are being addressed during 
finalization of the residual radiological criteria rule.
    Comment. Finally, several commenters requested that the NRC 
consider the impacts of the proposed ``safeguards for nuclear fuel or 
high level radioactive waste'' rule (60 FR 42079; August 15, 1995) 
(which affects parts 60, 72, 73, and 75) on this rule when that 
proposed rule is issued in final form.
    Response. This rule is primarily directed toward the procedural 
requirements necessary for power reactor decommissionings. Therefore, 
the requirements imposed by this rule can be treated independently from 
the other ``safeguards'' rule under development. That rule, when final, 
may modify some of the technical requirements imposed by this final 
rule.

Resolution of Comments on the Draft Policy Statement

    On February 3, 1994 (59 FR 5216), the NRC published in the Federal 
Register a draft policy statement and accompanying criteria relating to 
power reactor licensee use of decommissioning trust funds before NRC 
approval of licensees' decommissioning plans. The proposed rulemaking 
to amend the procedural aspects of decommissioning (60 FR 2210; July 
20, 1995) codified the position embodied in the draft policy statement. 
Based on the NRC's resolution of comments on the proposed rule and 
incorporated into this final rule, the criteria in the draft policy 
statement have been modified. No final policy statement will be issued. 
Other changes in the final rule pertaining to licensee use of 
decommissioning trust funds were discussed earlier in the section on 
Response to Comments.
    The NRC received comments on the draft policy statement from the 
following individuals or organizations:
    1. Michigan Department of Commerce
    2. Citizens Awareness Network
    3. Mary P. Sinclair
    4. Detroit Edison Company
    5. Committee for a Safe Energy Future
    6. Jon Block
    7. Nuclear Energy Institute
    8. Yankee Atomic Electric Company
    9. Virginia Power Company
    10. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
    11. Winston & Strawn
    12. Consolidated Edison Company
    13. Maryland Department of the Environment
    14. TU Electric Company
    The public interest group, individual commenters, and one State 
oppose allowing any withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds before 
the NRC approves a licensee's decommissioning plan, a procedure that 
this final rule has discontinued. The other commenters generally 
supported the draft policy statement, although they disagreed with 
certain provisions or took issue with the need for it. Specific 
comments and observations, and the NRC analysis of and response to 
them, are discussed below.

Specific Comments

    Comment 1. The trust agreements may need to be modified to include 
low-level radioactive waste storage and disposal (LLW) and interim 
spent fuel storage as allowable decommissioning costs when these costs 
are incurred as part of additional, temporary facilities at particular 
sites. LLW disposal costs, in particular, should be able to be paid 
from the decommissioning waste fund

[[Page 39293]]

without waiting 60 days for NRC approval. Provisions should be included 
for decommissioning nonradioactive structures associated with the 
reactor (Commenters 1 and 4).
    Response. The policy statement and this rule were not intended to 
address this issue. This issue is being addressed separately (see SECY 
95-223; September 1, 1995). As provided in 10 CFR 50.75, financial 
assurance for decommissioning includes the cost of disposal of LLW 
associated with reactor decommissioning. If a temporary facility is 
built to store LLW under the Part 50 reactor license, the trust 
agreement should have been structured to include these costs. Although 
the NRC definition of decommissioning excludes interim storage of spent 
reactor fuel, a licensee is required to provide for the cost of interim 
spent fuel storage under 10 CFR 50.54(bb).
    With respect to the issue of waiving the 60-day NRC approval period 
for withdrawals to pay for LLW shipments, this final rule eliminates 
the procedure to which this comment referred.
    Comment 2. The NRC should not allow decommissioning trust fund 
withdrawals before an environmental assessment is performed while the 
reactor licensee has a possession-only license because: (1) It will 
allow large-scale decommissioning activities without a resident NRC 
inspector on-site during the removal of irradiated components; (2) it 
is inconsistent with the mandate of the NRC, which is to implement a 
submitted, reviewed, publicly evaluated, and approved decommissioning 
plan before large-scale decommissioning activities begin; (3) health 
and safety of the workers and the public can not be adequately served 
by the experimental process of the component removal process, and (4) 
existing NRC regulations state that a licensee may only conduct limited 
activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan (e.g., 
decontamination, minor component disassembly, shipment and storage of 
spent fuel). Reasonable interpretation of the rules does not require 
expansion of 10 CFR 50.59 and/or activities permitted under a license 
(Commenters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10).

    There could be insufficient financial resources remaining to 
decommission Nuclear Power Plants thus, creating a potential burden 
on the State and, serious impairment of radioactive material 
licensee's ability to complete decommissioning. Most existing 
decommissioning `certifications and funding plans' are generally 
acknowledged by the NRC to already be severely UNDERFUNDED. This 
rule would exacerbate that situation (Commenter 13).

    Response. This final rule addresses the process that licensees are 
to use for post-shutdown decommissioning activities, as well as the 
limits on the amounts to be withdrawn from decommissioning trust funds.
    By permitting a licensee to perform certain decommissioning 
activities and to withdraw funds for those activities through use of 
the PSDAR submittal process required in the final rule will allow the 
licensee to reduce its overall decommissioning costs by taking 
advantage of lower low-level radioactive waste disposal costs. This 
will benefit the licensee and its ratepayers without adversely 
affecting public health and safety.
    Comment 3. The NRC should develop a similar policy for operating 
plants and should allow licensees to withdraw decommissioning trust 
funds to dispose of structures and equipment no longer being used for 
operating plants (Commenters 7, 8 (by reference), and 14).
    Footnote 2 of the policy statement should be revised to clarify 
that the policy statement does not apply ``to licensee withdrawals from 
decommissioning funds for operating plants'' rather than stating that 
the policy statement does not apply ``to licensees with operating 
nuclear reactors'' (Commenter 11).
    Response. The NRC has concluded that allowing decommissioning trust 
fund withdrawals for disposals by nuclear power plants that continue to 
operate is not warranted. These activities are more appropriately 
considered operating activities and should be financed in that way.
    Footnote 2 is not included in this final rule.
    Comment 4. The policy statement may become obsolete if the NRC 
adopts a new definition of decommissioning as proposed on February 2, 
1994 (59 FR 4868). This definition states, ``Decommissioning means to 
remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual 
radioactivity to a level that permits use of the property for 
unrestricted use and termination of the license, or (2) release of the 
property under restricted conditions and termination of the license.'' 
To avoid obsolescence of the policy statement as a result of changes in 
the definition of decommissioning, the commenters recommend replacing 
all references to release of the site for unrestricted use with 
``decommissioning of the site consistent with the definition in 
Sec. 50.2'' (Commenters 7, 8 (by reference), and 11).
    Response. The NRC agrees with this recommendation and has changed 
this final rule accordingly.
    Comment 5. Two commenters disagree with a statement in the draft 
policy statement, ``If a licensee of a permanently shut down facility 
spends decommissioning trust funds on legitimate decommissioning 
activities, the timing of these expenditures, either before or after 
NRC approves a licensee's decommissioning plan, should not adversely 
affect public health and safety, provided adequate funds are maintained 
to restore the facility to a safe storage configuration in case 
decommissioning activities are interrupted unexpectedly'' (Commenter 
7's emphasis). The commenters state that maintaining a viable SAFSTOR 
option beyond plan approval should not be required for cases where 
another option has been approved by NRC (Commenters 7 and 8).
    The draft policy statement misuses the term ``SAFSTOR'' to mean 
maintenance of a site in a safe storage condition prior to receipt of 
Decommissioning Plan approval and commencement of decommissioning 
rather than a specific decommissioning alternative defined in NRC 
regulations (Commenters 11 and 14).
    Response. Commenter 7 has misinterpreted the intent of this 
statement. First, this part of the policy statement was drafted to make 
the point that any expenditures for decommissioning activities normally 
viewed as necessary would not be detrimental to public health and 
safety, notwithstanding the timing of these expenditures, unless they 
were large enough to prevent the licensee from returning its facility 
to a safe storage configuration if the decommissioning process were to 
go awry. This is not the same as requiring a licensee to switch from 
DECON (immediate dismantlement) to SAFSTOR after the NRC has approved 
the licensee's decommissioning plan.
    This final rule modifies use of the above-referenced criterion for 
decommissioning trust fund withdrawals. However, the rule corrects any 
references to SAFSTOR when it means to address the general ability of a 
licensee to return its reactor to safe storage while awaiting further 
decommissioning.
    Comment 6. Criterion 4 is redundant of the other criteria 
(Commenters 7 and 8). At a minimum, the statement should indicate that 
items (c) and (d) of criterion 4 do not require NRC approval before a 
licensee undertakes the proposed activities (Commenter 8). Redundancies 
can be eliminated by

[[Page 39294]]

factoring the first three criteria into criterion 4. However, issuance 
of the policy statement based on criterion 4 (or the other criteria) is 
premature in that the NRC is currently considering more definitive 
guidance on acceptable pre-plan-approval decommissioning activities 
(Commenter 11).
    Response. The NRC agrees that some confusion may have arisen by 
including criterion 4 in the policy statement. The NRC included this 
criterion to provide guidance on the allowed decommissioning activities 
as opposed to the use of decommissioning trust funds for those 
activities. Criterion 4 is a quote from Commission guidance in the SRM 
of January 14, 1993, and, to some degree, overlaps the other criteria 
of the policy statement. The NRC has removed criterion 4 as a separate 
criterion in this final rule.
    Comment 7. The ``ancillary issue'' in the draft policy statement 
should be expanded to include a number of expenses that are paid out of 
decommissioning trusts by operating plants well in advance of licensee 
preparation and submission of the decommissioning plan. These expenses 
include, but are not limited to, trust fees, investment manager fees, 
income taxes, and periodic site-specific studies (Commenters 7, 8 (by 
reference), 11, and 14).
    The policy statement should be revised to state specifically that 
if a licensee determines that it meets the criteria for de minimis 
withdrawals, it need not request permission from the NRC to use these 
funds (Commenter 8).

    * * * The section dealing with `de minimis' withdrawals for 
developing the decommissioning plan also seems to be outside the 
original intent for use of these funds. These withdrawals may seem 
to be a minor portion of funds allocated for decommissioning, but it 
starts a process that would allow utilities to tap these funds, if 
they can fit activities into the definition of decommissioning or 
simply request to use these funds for other purposes * * * Other 
uses are unacceptable, even if they are subject to prior regulator 
approval (Commenter 13).

    Response. The intent of the ancillary issue was to allow de minimis 
withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds of up to $5 million for 
decommissioning-related administrative and other expenses without prior 
NRC consent notwithstanding the operating status of the plant. The 
final rule has changed this withdrawal amount to up to 3 percent of the 
generic amount specified in Sec. 50.75(c). This withdrawal amount is 
for purposes of planning for decommissioning (paper studies) and 
pertains to licensees of operating as well as permanently shut down 
plants. Permission from the NRC to use these funds in de minimis 
amounts is unnecessary as long as the amount and purpose of the 
withdrawal is documented.
    With respect to Commenter 13's concerns, the NRC has specified a 
maximum limit for de minimis withdrawals. If a licensee were to exceed 
this limit or use funds for non-decommissioning purposes, it would be 
subject to NRC enforcement action.
    Comment 8. ``* * * The NRC has neither articulated the reasons why 
this detailed level of oversight (discussed in the policy statement) is 
needed, nor has the NRC provided specific examples of potential waste 
and misuse of funds that would warrant their proposed oversight * * * 
Absent an appropriate justification for the implementation of this 
policy statement, * * * this policy statement represents regulation 
without benefit (and that NRC concerns expressed in the policy 
statement) are not tangible for decommissioning.'' Thus, the policy 
statement should not be issued (Commenter 9).
    Also, ``the draft policy statement provides no basis for the NRC's 
conclusion that prior NRC review of pre-plan-approval decommissioning 
fund expenditures should be required.'' The draft policy statement may 
satisfy the Commission's directive to the NRC staff to develop a policy 
without including an approval mechanism (Commenter 11).
    The draft policy statement is not clear as to the purpose of the 
NRC review of decommissioning expenditures before decommissioning plan 
approval. The only reason for the review, given in the statement of 
policy, is to ensure the health and safety of the general public. There 
are other regulatory mechanisms for evaluating the activity for which 
the funds are withdrawn without reviewing the actual withdrawal from 
the fund. The expenditure of decommissioning trust funds for legitimate 
decommissioning activities is an economic and not a safety concern 
(Commenter 14).
    Response. Although the NRC did not include specific examples of 
waste and misuse of funds in the policy statement, as with any 
industrial process, costly mistakes can conceivably occur in 
decommissioning. The NRC also disagrees that codifying decommissioning 
trust fund withdrawals represents regulation without benefit. The NRC 
has specifically promulgated decommissioning requirements in 10 CFR 
50.82 that include licensee PSDAR submittal process that is intended 
for keeping the NRC and public informed of the licensee's planned 
decommissioning activities. The intent of the regulations is to require 
licensees to maintain the entire amount of funds needed for 
decommissioning in a specified assurance mechanism until the funds are 
used for their intended decommissioning activities.
    The PSDAR is closely tied to a licensee's provision of assurance to 
fund the decommissioning activities adequately. Without any NRC 
criteria for expenditures before the PSDAR submittal process is 
completed, the decommissioning trust fund could become a shell and thus 
defeat the purpose of NRC decommissioning funding assurance 
regulations. Because of the safety implications of inadequate 
decommissioning funds, the NRC believes it has responsibility for 
specifying withdrawal rates, notwithstanding the reviews that rate 
regulators may perform.
    Comment 9. Trust fund withdrawals should also be permitted for 
early decommissioning-related activities that, although not themselves 
directly reducing radioactivity at the site, will significantly 
facilitate such activities when they subsequently occur (Commenters 11 
and 12).
    Response. In this final rule, withdrawals for planning activities 
are allowed before completion of the PSDAR process.
    Comment 10. The NRC should clarify footnote 2 to indicate that it 
applies to licensees of multi-unit sites. ``So long as usage of trust 
withdrawals is identifiable with the shut down reactor and does not 
diminish decontamination funding subsequently available for reactors 
which are continuing to operate, there is no reason why multi-reactor 
licensees should be treated differently than single-reactor licensees 
for purposes of this policy statement'' (Commenter 12).
    Response. The NRC agrees with this statement. However, footnote 2 
is not included in this final rule.
    Comment 11. ``If the NRC believes that NRC review and approval of 
pre-plan-approval decommissioning expenditures is necessary, it should 
act through rulemaking rather than policy * * * Since prior NRC review 
of decommissioning fund withdrawals is not currently required, if the 
NRC wishes to impose such a requirement, it should initiate rulemaking 
to revise its decommissioning regulations accordingly'' (Commenter 11).
    Response. This final rule codifies criteria for decommissioning 
trust fund withdrawals. Thus, this commenter's concerns have been 
addressed.

[[Page 39295]]

    Comment 12. ``The `tacit consent' approach for reviewing licensee 
expenditure plans is inappropriate'' and unsupported by the reasons the 
NRC stated for its policy. By expressly preserving the possibility that 
it would take action to prevent a fund withdrawal, the NRC blurs its 
asserted distinction between review and approval. Also, it is not clear 
that ``tacit consent'' and ``approval'' are legally distinguishable for 
purposes of determining whether the NRC is engaged in a ``licensing 
action'' that could involve public participation and environmental 
review (Commenter 11).
    Response. The NRC does not use ``tacit consent'' in this final 
rule. Thus, the concerns expressed in this comment should be assuaged.
    Comment 13. ``Criterion 1 * * * should be revised to eliminate the 
provision that withdrawals must be for activities `that would 
necessarily occur under most reasonable decommissioning scenarios.''' 
This phrase adds nothing to the preceding provision that the withdrawal 
must be for ``legitimate decommissioning activities.'' Because 
licensees may face decommissioning expenditures for activities that are 
within the NRC's definition of decommissioning but nonetheless unique 
to their plant(s), the proposed provision is inappropriately 
restrictive (Commenter 11).

    Criterion 1 is overly restrictive and burdensome * * * If the 
NRC wants to prevent activities that preclude release of the site 
for (un)restricted use or are not in support of decommissioning 
efforts it should require review of the activity itself through any 
of the other available mechanisms such as 10 CFR 50.59 or special 
rulemaking * * * The basic premise is that in the event that there 
are circumstances or conditions which delay or preclude proceeding 
with the decommissioning effort there will be funds available to 
place the plant in a storage condition until the event or 
circumstance is resolved. Thus, as long as the value of the fund 
does not fall below the regulatory required amount in effect at the 
time of the request the withdrawal should be allowed. Thus, the only 
requirement should be that the utility document that [the] activity 
was a legitimate decommissioning activity and the expenditure was 
reasonable (Commenter 14).

    Response. The NRC did not mean to imply that decommissioning 
activities unique to one site would not be eligible for early trust 
fund withdrawals. However, because we agree that the phrase, 
``legitimate decommissioning activities,'' is sufficient, the NRC has 
eliminated the phrase from this final rule.
    Comment 14. ``* * * The explicit characterization as a 
decommissioning `contingency' of the funding `necessary to maintain the 
status quo' could be construed inappropriately to require that 
licensees include funding for that purpose in their decommissioning 
funds * * * If this criterion is retained, the language regarding 
provisions for this contingency should be deleted from the policy 
statement'' (Commenter 11).
    Response. This terminology has been eliminated in this final rule.
    Comment 15. ``It does not seem necessary that NRC approve requests 
for the `withdrawal of decommissioning funds for early equipment 
removal, prior to approval of the utilities['] decommissioning plans. 
This does not seem in concert with the intent of the sample statement 
under Background `* * * the fund trustee should only release funds upon 
certification that decommissioning is proceeding pursuant to an NRC-
approved plan' '' (Commenter 13).
    Response. This final rule does not continue the language in 
question.
    Comment 16. ``* * * This ruling may be judged as an item of 
Compatibility (for Agreement States). Because Maryland regulations, 
policies, etc., are expected to closely follow Federal rules and 
procedures, we would be forced to adopt and allow our licensees to use 
the same principle'' (Commenter 13).
    Response. The NRC does not believe that this is an issue of State 
compatibility because this final rule only applies to power reactor 
licensees, which are exclusively NRC licensees.

Summary of Changes in the Final Rule

    Based on the response to comments, a few changes were made in the 
final rule. Otherwise, the final rule provisions are the same as those 
presented in the ``background'' section under the section titled 
proposed amendments. Specific changes made to the proposed rule in the 
final rule are summarized as follows:
    (1) Section 50.2. The definition of ``major radioactive 
components'' has been clarified.
    (2) Section 50.36a(a)(1). The amendment has been changed to exclude 
systems that are no longer necessary for compliance.
    (3) Section 50.59. Proposed Sec. 50.59(e) was eliminated. However, 
three of the proposed rule requirements contained in Sec. 50.59(e) were 
moved to Sec. 50.82(a) (6) and (7). Placing these requirements in 
Sec. 50.82 as overall constraints, rather than specific requirements 
for each Sec. 50.59 activity, required modification of the constraint 
that the decommissioning activities not result in significantly 
increasing decommissioning costs. Thus, the final rule 
(Sec. 50.82(a)(6)(iii)) prohibits decommissioning activities that would 
result in there no longer being reasonable assurance that adequate 
funds will be available to complete decommissioning. In addition, the 
final rule requires in Sec. 50.82(a)(7) that changes from those 
specified in the PSDAR that would result in significantly increasing 
decommissioning costs require written notification to the NRC. The 
fourth requirement that the terms of the existing license not be 
violated was eliminated. The requirement to consider environmental 
impact in the PSDAR, Sec. 50.82(a)(4) was modified to explicitly 
require the reasons for concluding that any environmental impacts will 
be bounded by existing analysis.
    (4) Section 50.71. Section 50.71(e)(4) was revised to permit 
nuclear power reactor licensees that have submitted the certifications 
required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) to update the FSAR every 24-months.
    (5) Sections 50.82(a)(4)(i) and (6). The licensee is required to 
send a copy of the PSDAR and written notification of departure from the 
PSDAR to the NRC and affected State(s).
    (6) Section 50.82(a)(8)(ii). The phrase ``being permitted to use'' 
was removed from this section to avoid any incorrect interpretation 
that the NRC must explicitly approve decommissioning funding 
expenditures.
    (7) Section 50.82. Specifies that once the rule is effective, all 
power reactor licensees must comply with it. Power reactor licensees 
that possess an approved plan as well as licensees that applied for 
plan approval before the rule took effect would have the plan 
considered a PSDAR submittal, and licensees would be permitted to 
perform decommissioning activities in accordance with Sec. 50.82. 
However, for power reactor licensees who are involved in subpart G 
hearings of 10 CFR part 2, conversion to the new rule will not be 
permitted until the hearing process is completed and those licensees 
will be subject to any orders arising from these hearings absent any 
orders from the Commission.
    (8) Section 50.82(a)(1)(iii). Specifies that once the rule is 
effective, power reactor licensees whose licenses have been modified, 
before the effective date of this rule, to possess but not operate the 
facility, will be considered to have submitted the certifications 
required in Sec. 50.82(a)(1).
    (9) To improve clarity, the first sentence in Sec. 2.1205(d)(1) has 
been rewritten from that proposed to that found in the existing 
regulation.
    (10) To improve clarity and maintain parallelism of requirements, 
the last

[[Page 39296]]

sentence of Sec. 51.53(b) has been rewritten from that found in the 
proposed rule to correspond with the language found in Sec. 51.95(b) of 
the proposed (and existing) rule.
    (11) To improve clarity, Sec. 50.82(a)(9)(ii) (B) and (F) have been 
rewritten.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not 
required. The final rule clarifies current decommissioning requirements 
for nuclear power reactors in 10 CFR Part 50 and presents a more 
efficient, uniform, and understandable process. The Commission has 
analyzed the major environmental impacts associated with 
decommissioning in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), 
NUREG-0586, August 1988,\1\ published in conjunction with the 
Commission's final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988).
    Insofar as this rule would allow major decommissioning 
(dismantlement) to proceed without an environmental assessment, the 
environmental impacts of this rule are within the scope of the prior 
GEIS. The environmental assessment for the final rule and finding of no 
significant impact on which this determination is based are available 
for inspection and photocopying for a fee at the NRC Public Document 
Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of 
the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact 
are available from Carl Feldman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-6194.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements that are 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget, approval number 3150-0011.
    Because the rule will relax existing information collection 
requirements, the public burden for this collection of information is 
expected to be decreased by 12,202 hours per licensee. This reduction 
includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 
on any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions 
for further reducing this burden, to the Information and Records 
Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to 
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis for this final rule. The 
analysis qualitatively examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the NRC. In the response to comments, the 
NRC concluded that only some minor changes to the draft regulatory 
analysis were necessary, corresponding to some minor procedural changes 
in the final rule. The regulatory analysis is available for inspection 
in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Single copies of the analysis may be 
obtained from Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
telephone (301) 415-6194.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The final rule modifies requirements for timely decommissioning of 
nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall 
within the scope of the definition of small entities as given in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards 
promulgated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration 
(13 CFR Part 121). This discussion constitutes the analysis for the 
regulatory flexibility certification requirement.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB

Backfit Analysis

    The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, 
does not apply to these final amendments, and therefore, a backfit 
analysis has not been prepared for this rule. The scope of the backfit 
provision in 10 CFR 50.109 is limited to construction and operation of 
reactors. These final amendments would only apply to reactors that have 
permanently ceased operations and, as such, would not constitute 
backfits under 10 CFR 50.109.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex 
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and 
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 
1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the 
following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, and 51.

PART 2-- RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND 
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 
409

[[Page 39297]]

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 
105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. 
L. 97-425 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec. 102, 
Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 
88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 
2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 
936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 
2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 
96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued 
under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 
Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236, 2282); 
sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.600-2.606 also 
issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. 
Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780, also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. 
Section 2.764 and Table 1A of Appendix C also issued under secs. 
135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 
10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85 256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 
U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 
10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 
U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 
84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under sec. 
10, Pub. L. 99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et. seq.).

    2. Section 2.1201, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1201  Scope of subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The amendment of a Part 50 license following permanent removal 
of fuel from the Part 50 facility to an authorized facility for 
licensees that have previously made declarations related to permanent 
cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor 
in accordance with Sec. 50.82(a)(1). Subpart L hearings for the license 
termination plan amendment, if conducted, must be completed before 
license termination.
* * * * *
     3. Section 2.1203, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1203  Docket; filing; service.

* * * * *
    (e) A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must 
be served in accordance with Sec. 2.712 and Sec. 2.1205(f) and (R). All 
other documents issued by the presiding officer or the Commission or 
offered for filing are served in accordance with Sec. 2.712.
    4. Section 2.1205, paragraphs (c) through (n) are redesignated as 
paragraphs (d) through (o), a new paragraph (c) is added, and newly 
designated paragraphs (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), the introductory text of 
paragraph (h), (i), the introductory text of paragraph (j), the 
introductory text of paragraph (k), (k)(3), the introductory text of 
paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1205  Request for a hearing; petition for leave to intervene.

* * * * *
    (c) For amendments of Part 50 licenses under Sec. 2.1201(a)(3), a 
notice of receipt of the application, with reference to the opportunity 
for a hearing under the procedures set forth in this subpart, must be 
published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to issuance of 
the requested amendment by the Commission.
    (d) A person, other than an applicant, shall file a request for a 
hearing within--
    (1) Thirty days of the agency's publication in the Federal Register 
of a notice referring or relating to an application or the licensing 
action requested by an application, which must include a reference to 
the opportunity for a hearing under the procedures set forth in this 
subpart. With respect to an amendment described in Sec. 2.1201(a)(3), 
other than the one to terminate the license, the Commission, prior to 
issuance of the requested amendment, will follow the procedures in 
Sec. 50.91 and Sec. 50.92(c) to the extent necessary to make a 
determination on whether the amendment involves a significant hazards 
consideration. If the Commission finds there are significant hazards 
considerations involved in the requested amendment, the amendment will 
not be issued until any hearings under this paragraph are completed.
    (2) If a Federal Register notice is not published in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(1), the earliest of--
    (i) Thirty days after the requester receives actual notice of a 
pending application, or
    (ii) Thirty days after the requester receives actual notice of an 
agency action granting an application in whole or in part, or
    (iii) One hundred and eighty days after agency action granting an 
application in whole or in part.
    (e) * * *
    (2) How the interests may be affected by the results of the 
proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted 
a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in 
paragraph (h) of this section;
* * * * *
    (4) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing 
is timely in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) In ruling on a request for a hearing filed under paragraph (d) 
of this section, the presiding officer shall determine that the 
specified areas of concern are germane to the subject matter of the 
proceeding and that the petition is timely. The presiding officer also 
shall determine that the requestor meets the judicial standards for 
standing and shall consider, among other factors--
* * * * *
    (i) If a hearing request filed under paragraph (b) of this section 
is granted, the applicant and the NRC staff shall be parties to the 
proceeding. If a hearing request filed under paragraph (c) or (d) of 
this section is granted, the requestor shall be a party to the 
proceeding along with the applicant and the NRC staff, if the NRC staff 
chooses or is ordered to participate as a party in accordance with 
Sec. 2.1213.
    (j) If a request for hearing is granted and a notice of the kind 
described in paragraph (d)(1) previously has not been published in the 
Federal Register, a notice of hearing must be published in the Federal 
Register stating--
* * * * *
    (k) Any petition for leave to intervene must be filed within 30 
days of the date of publication of the notice of hearing. The petition 
must set forth the information required under paragraph (e) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (3) Thereafter, the petition for leave to intervene must be ruled 
upon by the presiding officer, taking into account the matters set 
forth in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (l)(1) A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene 
found by the presiding officer to be untimely under paragraph (d) or 
(k) of this section will be entertained only upon determination by the 
Commission or the presiding officer that the requestor or petitioner 
has established that--
* * * * *
    (2) If the request for a hearing on the petition for leave to 
intervene is found to be untimely and the requestor or petitioner fails 
to establish that it otherwise should be entertained on the paragraph 
(l)(1) of this section, the request or petition will be treated as a

[[Page 39298]]

petition under Sec. 2.206 and referred for appropriate disposition.
* * * * *
    5. Section 2.1211, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1211  Participation by a person not a party.

* * * * *
    (b) Within 30 days of an order granting a request for a hearing 
made under Sec. 2.1205 (b)-(d) or, in instances when it is published, 
within 30 days of notice of hearing issued under Sec. 2.1205(j), the 
representative of the interested State, county, municipality, or an 
agency thereof, may request an opportunity to participate in a 
proceeding under this subpart. The request for an opportunity to 
participate must state with reasonable specificity the requestor's 
areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject 
matter of the proceeding. Upon receipt of a request that is filed in 
accordance with these time limits and that specifies the requestor's 
areas of concern, the presiding officer shall afford the representative 
a reasonable opportunity to make written and oral presentations in 
accordance with Secs. 2.1233 and 2.1235, without requiring the 
representative to take a position with respect to the issues. 
Participants under this subsection may notice an appeal of an initial 
decision in accordance with Sec. 2.1253 with respect to any issue on 
which they participate.
* * * * *
    6. Section 2.1213 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1213  Role of the NRC staff.

    If a hearing request is filed under Sec. 2.1205(b), the NRC staff 
shall be a party to the proceeding. If a hearing request is filed under 
Sec. 2.1205 (c) or (d), within 10 days of the designation of a 
presiding officer pursuant to Sec. 2.1207, the NRC staff shall notify 
the presiding officer whether or not the staff desires to participate 
as a party to the adjudication. In addition, upon a determination by 
the presiding officer that the resolution of any issue in the 
proceeding would be aided materially by the staff's participation in 
the proceeding as a party, the presiding officer may order or permit 
the NRC staff to participate as a party with respect to that particular 
issue.
    7. Section 2.1233, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1233  Written presentations; written questions.

* * * * *
    (c) In a hearing initiated under Sec. 2.1205(d), the initial 
written presentation of a party that requested a hearing or petitioned 
for leave to intervene must describe in detail any deficiency or 
omission in the license application, with references to any particular 
section or portion of the application considered deficient, give a 
detailed statement of reasons why any particular sections or portion is 
deficient or why an omission is material, and describe in detail what 
relief is sought with respect to each deficiency or omission.
* * * * *
    8. Section 2.1263 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1263  Stays of NRC staff licensing actions or of decisions of a 
presiding officer or the Commission pending hearing or review.

    Applications for a stay of any decision or action of the 
Commission, a presiding officer, or any action by the NRC staff in 
issuing a license in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(m) are governed by 
Sec. 2.788, except that any request for a stay of staff licensing 
action pending completion of an adjudication under this subpart must be 
filed at the time a request for a hearing or petition to intervene is 
filed or within 10 days of the staff's action, whichever is later. A 
request for a stay of a staff licensing action must be filed with the 
adjudicatory decisionmaker before which the licensing proceeding is 
pending.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

    9. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
    Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 
185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102 Pub. 
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), 
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued 
under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 
50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued 
under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 
50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 
U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 
68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued 
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

    10. Section 50.2, the terms ``Certified fuel handler,'' ``Major 
decommissioning activity,'' ``Major radioactive components,'' 
``Permanent cessation of operations,'' and ``Permanent fuel removal,'' 
are added to read as follows:


Sec. 50.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Certified fuel handler means, for a nuclear power reactor facility, 
a non-licensed operator who has qualified in accordance with a fuel 
handler training program approved by the Commission.
* * * * *
    Major decommissioning activity means, for a nuclear power reactor 
facility, any activity that results in permanent removal of major 
radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of the 
containment, or results in dismantling components for shipment 
containing greater than class C waste in accordance with Sec. 61.55 of 
this chapter.
    Major radioactive components means, for a nuclear power reactor 
facility, the reactor vessel and internals, steam generators, 
pressurizers, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large 
components that are radioactive to a comparable degree.
* * * * *
    Permanent cessation of operation(s) means, for a nuclear power 
reactor facility, a certification by a licensee to the NRC that it has 
permanently ceased or will permanently cease reactor operation(s), or a 
final legally effective order to permanently cease operation(s) has 
come into effect.
    Permanent fuel removal means, for a nuclear power reactor facility, 
a certification by the licensee to the NRC that it has permanently 
removed all fuel assemblies from the reactor vessel.
* * * * *
    11. Section 50.4, paragraphs (b)(8) and (b)(9) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 50.4  Written communications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Certification of permanent cessation of operations. The 
licensee's certification of permanent cessation of operations, pursuant 
to Sec. 50.82(a)(1), must state the date on which operations have 
ceased or will cease, and the signed and notarized original must be 
submitted to: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    (9) Certification of permanent fuel removal. The licensee's 
certification of

[[Page 39299]]

permanent fuel removal, pursuant to Sec. 50.82(a)(1), must state the 
date on which the fuel was removed from the reactor vessel and the 
disposition of the fuel, and the signed and notarized original must be 
submitted to: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
* * * * *
    12. Section 50.36, paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) are redesignated as 
(c)(7) and (c)(8) and new paragraphs (c)(6) and (e) are added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 50.36  Technical specifications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Decommissioning. This paragraph applies only to nuclear power 
reactor facilities that have submitted the certifications required by 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1) and to non-power reactor facilities which are not 
authorized to operate. Technical specifications involving safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control system 
settings; limiting conditions for operation; surveillance requirements; 
design features; and administrative controls will be developed on a 
case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    (e) The provisions of this section apply to each nuclear reactor 
licensee whose authority to operate the reactor has been removed by 
license amendment, order, or regulation.
    13. Section 50.36a is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.36a  Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power 
reactors.

    (a) In order to keep releases of radioactive materials to 
unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected 
occurrences, as low as is reasonably achievable, each licensee of a 
nuclear power reactor will include technical specifications that, in 
addition to requiring compliance with applicable provisions of 
Sec. 20.1301 of this chapter, require that:
    (1) Operating procedures developed pursuant to Sec. 50.34a(c) for 
the control of effluents be established and followed and that the 
radioactive waste system, pursuant to Sec. 50.34a, be maintained and 
used. The licensee shall retain the operating procedures in effect as a 
record until the Commission terminates the license and shall retain 
each superseded revision of the procedures for 3 years from the date it 
was superseded.
    (2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commission annually 
that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides 
released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents 
during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may 
be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual 
radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. The 
report must be submitted as specified in Sec. 50.4, and the time 
between submission of the reports must be no longer than 12 months. If 
quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting 
period are significantly above design objectives, the report must cover 
this specifically. On the basis of these reports and any additional 
information the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the 
Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission 
deems appropriate.
    (b) In establishing and implementing the operating procedures 
described in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee shall be 
guided by the following considerations: Experience with the design, 
construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that 
compliance with the technical specifications described in this section 
will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents 
and their resultant committed effective dose equivalents at small 
percentages of the dose limits specified in Sec. 20.1301 and in the 
license. At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of 
operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to 
assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even 
under unusual conditions which may temporarily result in releases 
higher than such small percentages, but still within the limits 
specified in Sec. 20.1301 of this chapter and in the license. It is 
expected that in using this flexibility under unusual conditions, the 
licensee will exert its best efforts to keep levels of radioactive 
material in effluents as low as is reasonably achievable. The guides 
set out in appendix I, provide numerical guidance on limiting 
conditions for operation for light-water cooled nuclear power reactors 
to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents 
released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reasonably 
achievable.
    14. Section 50.36b is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.36b  Environmental conditions.

    Each license authorizing operation of a production or utilization 
facility, and each license for a nuclear power reactor facility for 
which the certification of permanent cessation of operations required 
under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) has been submitted, which is of a type described 
in Sec. 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 or is a testing facility, may 
include conditions to protect the environment to be set out in an 
attachment to the license which is incorporated in and made a part of 
the license. These conditions will be derived from information 
contained in the environmental report and the supplement to the 
environmental report submitted pursuant to Secs. 51.50 and 51.53 of 
this chapter as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision, 
and will identify the obligations of the licensee in the environmental 
area, including, as appropriate, requirements for reporting and keeping 
records of environmental data, and any conditions and monitoring 
requirement for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.
    15. Section 50.44, paragraph (a), is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.44  Standards for combustible gas control system in light-
water-cooled power reactors.

    (a) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor 
fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO 
cladding, must, as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section, include means for control of hydrogen gas that may be 
generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) by--
    (1) Metal-water reaction involving the fuel cladding and the 
reactor coolant,
    (2) Radiolytic decomposition of the reactor coolant, and
    (3) Corrosion of metals.

This section does not apply to a nuclear power reactor facility for 
which the certifications required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been 
submitted.
* * * * *
    16. Section 50.46, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 50.46  Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for 
light-water nuclear power reactors.

    (a)(1)(i) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power 
reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy 
or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling 
system (ECCS) that must be designed so that its calculated cooling 
performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to 
the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. ECCS cooling 
performance must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable 
evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of postulated 
loss-of-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other 
properties sufficient to provide assurance that the

[[Page 39300]]

most severe postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated. Except 
as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the evaluation 
model must include sufficient supporting justification to show that the 
analytical technique realistically describes the behavior of the 
reactor system during a loss-of-coolant accident. Comparisons to 
applicable experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the 
analysis method and inputs must be identified and assessed so that the 
uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated. This 
uncertainty must be accounted for, so that, when the calculated ECCS 
cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph 
(b) of this section, there is a high level of probability that the 
criteria would not be exceeded. Appendix K, Part II Required 
Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each 
evaluation model. This section does not apply to a nuclear power 
reactor facility for which the certifications required under 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted.
* * * * *
    17. Section Sec. 50.48, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 50.48  Fire protection.

* * * * *
    (f) Licensees that have submitted the certifications required under 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1) shall maintain a fire protection program to address 
the potential for fires which could cause the release or spread of 
radioactive materials (i.e., which could result in a radiological 
hazard).
    (1) The objectives of the fire protection program are to--
    (i) Reasonably prevent such fires from occurring;
    (ii) Rapidly detect, control, and extinguish those fires which do 
occur and which could result in a radiological hazard; and
    (iii) Ensure that the risk of fire-induced radiological hazards to 
the public, environment and plant personnel is minimized.
    (2) The fire protection program must be assessed by the licensee on 
a regular basis and revised as appropriate throughout the various 
stages of facility decommissioning.
    (3) The licensee may make changes to the fire protection program 
without NRC approval if these changes do not reduce the effectiveness 
of fire protection for facilities, systems, and equipment which could 
result in a radiological hazard, taking into account the 
decommissioning plant conditions and activities.
    18. Section 50.49, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.49  Environmental qualification of electric equipment important 
to safety for nuclear power plants.

    (a) Each holder of or an applicant for a license for a nuclear 
power plant, other than a nuclear power plant for which the 
certifications required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, 
shall establish a program for qualifying the electric equipment defined 
in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    19. Section 50.51, the section heading is revised, the existing 
paragraph is designated paragraph (a), and new paragraph (b) is added 
to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 50.51  Continuation of license.

* * * * *
    (b) Each license for a facility that has permanently ceased 
operations, continues in effect beyond the expiration date to authorize 
ownership and possession of the production or utilization facility, 
until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license 
is terminated. During such period of continued effectiveness the 
licensee shall--
    (1) Take actions necessary to decommission and decontaminate the 
facility and continue to maintain the facility, including, where 
applicable, the storage, control and maintenance of the spent fuel, in 
a safe condition, and
    (2) Conduct activities in accordance with all other restrictions 
applicable to the facility in accordance with the NRC regulations and 
the provisions of the specific 10 CFR part 50 license for the facility.

    20. Section 50.54, paragraphs (o) and (y) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 50.54  Conditions of licenses.

* * * * *
    (o) Primary reactor containments for water cooled power reactors, 
other than facilities for which the certifications required under 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, shall be subject to the 
requirements set forth in appendix J to this part.
* * * * *
    (y) Licensee action permitted by paragraph (x) of this section 
shall be approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior operator, or, at 
a nuclear power reactor facility for which the certifications required 
under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, by either a licensed senior 
operator or a certified fuel handler, prior to taking the action.
* * * * *
    21. Section 50.59, paragraphs (d) and (e) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 50.59  Changes, tests and experiments.

* * * * *
    (d) The provisions of this section apply to each nuclear power 
reactor licensee that has submitted the certification of permanent 
cessation of operations required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1)(i).
    (e) The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 
apply to each non-power reactor licensee whose license no longer 
authorizes operation of the reactor.

    22. Section 50.60, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.60  Acceptance criteria for fracture prevention measures for 
light-water nuclear power reactors for normal operation.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all light-
water nuclear power reactors, other than reactor facilities for which 
the certifications required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, 
must meet the fracture toughness and material surveillance program 
requirements for the reactor coolant pressure boundary set forth in 
appendices G and H to this part.
* * * * *
    23. Section 50.61, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.61  Fracture toughness requirements for protection against 
pressurized thermal shock events.

* * * * *
    (b) Requirements.
     (1) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which an 
operating license has been issued, other than a nuclear power reactor 
facility for which the certifications required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) 
have been submitted, the licensee shall have projected values of 
RTPTS, accepted by the NRC, for each reactor vessel beltline 
material for the EOL fluence of the material. The assessment of 
RTPTS must use the calculation procedures given in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and 
(c)(3) of this section. The assessment must specify the bases for the 
projected value of RTPTS for each vessel beltline material, 
including the assumptions regarding core loading patterns, and must 
specify the copper and nickel contents and the fluence value used in 
the calculation for each beltline material. This assessment must be 
updated whenever there is a significant 2 change in projected 
values of RTPTS, or

[[Page 39301]]

upon request for a change in the expiration date for operation of the 
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Changes to RTPTS values are considered significant if 
either the previous value or the current value, or both values, 
exceed the screening criterion prior to the expiration of the 
operating license, including any renewed term, if applicable for the 
plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    24. Section 50.62, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.62  Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated 
transients without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear 
power plants.

     (a) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all 
commercial light-water-cooled nuclear power plants, other than nuclear 
power reactor facilities for which the certifications required under 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted.
* * * * *
    25. Section 50.65, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.65  Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of 
maintenance at nuclear power plants.

    (a)(1) Each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant 
under Secs. 50.21(b) or 50.22 shall monitor the performance or 
condition of structures, systems, or components, against licensee-
established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable 
assurance that such structures, systems, and components, as defined in 
paragraph (b), are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Such 
goals shall be established commensurate with safety and, where 
practical, take into account industry-wide operating experience. When 
the performance or condition of a structure, system, or component does 
not meet established goals, appropriate corrective action shall be 
taken. For a nuclear power plant for which the licensee has submitted 
the certifications specified in Sec. 50.82(a)(1), this section only 
shall apply to the extent that the licensee shall monitor the 
performance or condition of all structures, systems, or components 
associated with the storage, control, and maintenance of spent fuel in 
a safe condition, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable 
assurance that such structures, systems, and components are capable of 
fulfilling their intended functions.
* * * * *
    26. Section 50.71, paragraph (e)(4) is revised and paragraph (f) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 50.71  Maintenance of records, making of reports.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after 
each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates 
does not exceed 24 months. The revisions must reflect all changes up to 
a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filling. For nuclear power 
reactor facilities that have submitted the certifications required by 
Sec. 50.82(a)(1), subsequent revisions must be filed every 24 months.
* * * * *
    (f) The provisions of this section apply to nuclear power reactor 
licensees that have submitted the certification of permanent cessation 
of operations required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1)(i). The provisions of 
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section also apply to non-power 
reactor licensees that are no longer authorized to operate.
    27. Section 50.75, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.75  Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning.

* * * * *
    (f)(1) Each power reactor licensee shall at or about 5 years prior 
to the projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning 
cost estimate which includes an up-to-date assessment of the major 
factors that could affect the cost to decommission.
    (2) Each non-power reactor licensee shall at or about 2 years prior 
to the projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning 
plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date 
assessment of the major factors that could affect planning for 
decommissioning. Factors to be considered in submitting this 
preliminary plan information include--
    (i) The decommissioning alternative anticipated to be used. The 
requirements of Sec. 50.82(b)(4)(i) must be considered at this time;
    (ii) Major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning 
safely;
    (iii) The current situation with regard to disposal of high-level 
and low-level radioactive waste;
    (iv) Residual radioactivity criteria;
    (v) Other site specific factors which could affect decommissioning 
planning and cost.
    (3) If necessary, the cost estimate, for power and non-power 
reactors, shall also include plans for adjusting levels of funds 
assured for decommissioning to demonstrate that a reasonable level of 
assurance will be provided that funds will be available when needed to 
cover the cost of decommissioning.
* * * * *
    28. Section 50.82 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.82  Termination of license.

    For power reactor licensees who, before the effective date of this 
rule, either submitted a decommissioning plan for approval or possess 
an approved decommissioning plan, the plan is considered to be the 
PSDAR submittal required under paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the 
provisions of this section apply accordingly. For power reactor 
licensees whose decommissioning plan approval activities have been 
relegated to notice of opportunity for a hearing under subpart G of 10 
CFR part 2, the public meeting convened and 90-day delay of major 
decommissioning activities required in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (a)(5) 
of this section shall not apply, and any orders arising from 
proceedings under subpart G of 10 CFR part 2 shall continue and remain 
in effect absent any orders from the Commission.
    (a) For power reactor licensees--
    (1) (i) When a licensee has determined to permanently cease 
operations the licensee shall, within 30 days, submit a written 
certification to the NRC, consistent with the requirements of 
Sec. 50.4(b)(8);
    (ii) Once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor 
vessel, the licensee shall submit a written certification to the NRC 
that meets the requirements of Sec. 50.4(b)(9) and;
    (iii) For licensees whose licenses have been permanently modified 
to allow possession but not operation of the facility, before the 
effective date of this rule, the certifications required in paragraphs 
(a)(1) (i)-(ii) of this section shall be deemed to have been submitted.
    (2) Upon docketing of the certifications for permanent cessation of 
operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, or 
when a final legally effective order to permanently cease operations 
has come into effect, the 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorizes 
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the 
reactor vessel.
    (3) Decommissioning will be completed within 60 years of permanent 
cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years 
will be approved by the Commission only when necessary to protect 
public health and safety. Factors that will be considered by the 
Commission in evaluating an alternative that provides for completion of 
decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations 
include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site-
specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out 
decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the 
site.

[[Page 39302]]

    (4) (i) Prior to or within 2 years following permanent cessation of 
operations, the licensee shall submit a post-shutdown decommissioning 
activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC, and a copy to the affected 
State(s). The report must include a description of the planned 
decommissioning activities along with a schedule for their 
accomplishment, an estimate of expected costs, and a discussion that 
provides the reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts 
associated with site-specific decommissioning activities will be 
bounded by appropriate previously issued environmental impact 
statements.
    (ii) The NRC shall notice receipt of the PSDAR and make the PSDAR 
available for public comment. The NRC shall also schedule a public 
meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of the 
PSDAR. The NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a 
forum, such as local newspapers, that is readily accessible to 
individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and 
location of the meeting, along with a brief description of the purpose 
of the meeting.
    (5) Licensees shall not perform any major decommissioning 
activities, as defined in Sec. 50.2, until 90 days after the NRC has 
received the licensee's PSDAR submittal and until certifications of 
permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from 
the reactor vessel, as required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1), have been 
submitted.
    (6) Licensees shall not perform any decommissioning activities, as 
defined in Sec. 50.2, that--
    (i) Foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use;
    (ii) Result in significant environmental impacts not previously 
reviewed; or
    (iii) Result in there no longer being reasonable assurance that 
adequate funds will be available for decommissioning.
    (7) In taking actions permitted under Sec. 50.59 following 
submittal of the PSDAR, the licensee shall notify the NRC, in writing 
and send a copy to the affected State(s), before performing any 
decommissioning activity inconsistent with, or making any significant 
schedule change from, those actions and schedules described in the 
PSDAR, including changes that significantly increase the 
decommissioning cost.
    (8)(i) Decommissioning trust funds may be used by licensees if--
    (A) The withdrawals are for expenses for legitimate decommissioning 
activities consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 
Sec. 50.2;
    (B) The expenditure would not reduce the value of the 
decommissioning trust below an amount necessary to place and maintain 
the reactor in a safe storage condition if unforeseen conditions or 
expenses arise and;
    (C) The withdrawals would not inhibit the ability of the licensee 
to complete funding of any shortfalls in the decommissioning trust 
needed to ensure the availability of funds to ultimately release the 
site and terminate the license.
    (ii) Initially, 3 percent of the generic amount specified in 
Sec. 50.75 may be used for decommissioning planning. For licensees that 
have submitted the certifications required under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) and 
commencing 90 days after the NRC has received the PSDAR, an additional 
20 percent may be used. A site-specific decommissioning cost estimate 
must be submitted to the NRC prior to the licensee using any funding in 
excess of these amounts.
    (iii) Within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, 
if not already submitted, the licensee shall submit a site-specific 
decommissioning cost estimate.
    (iv) For decommissioning activities that delay completion of 
decommissioning by including a period of storage or surveillance, the 
licensee shall provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and 
associated funding levels over the storage or surveillance period.
    (9) All power reactor licensees must submit an application for 
termination of license. The application for termination of license must 
be accompanied or preceded by a license termination plan to be 
submitted for NRC approval.
    (i) The license termination plan must be a supplement to the FSAR 
or equivalent and must be submitted at least 2 years before termination 
of the license date.
    (ii) The license termination plan must include--
    (A) A site characterization;
    (B) Identification of remaining dismantlement activities;
    (C) Plans for site remediation;
    (D) Detailed plans for the final radiation survey;
    (E) A description of the end use of the site, if restricted;
    (F) An updated site-specific estimate of remaining decommissioning 
costs; and
    (G) A supplement to the environmental report, pursuant to 
Sec. 51.53, describing any new information or significant environmental 
change associated with the licensee's proposed termination activities.
    (iii) The NRC shall notice receipt of the license termination plan 
and make the license termination plan available for public comment. The 
NRC shall also schedule a public meeting in the vicinity of the 
licensee's facility upon receipt of the license termination plan. The 
NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such 
as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the 
vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the 
meeting, along with a brief description of the purpose of the meeting.
    (10) If the license termination plan demonstrates that the 
remainder of decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance 
with the regulations in this chapter, will not be inimical to the 
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, 
and will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
environment and after notice to interested persons, the Commission 
shall approve the plan, by license amendment, subject to such 
conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and 
authorize implementation of the license termination plan.
    (11) The Commission shall terminate the license if it determines 
that--
    (i) The remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance 
with the approved license termination plan, and
    (ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation 
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release.
    (b) For non-power reactor licensees--
    (1) A licensee that permanently ceases operations must make 
application for license termination within 2 years following permanent 
cessation of operations, and in no case later than 1 year prior to 
expiration of the operating license. Each application for termination 
of a license must be accompanied or preceded by a proposed 
decommissioning plan. The contents of the decommissioning plan are 
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
    (2) For decommissioning plans in which the major dismantlement 
activities are delayed by first placing the facility in storage, 
planning for these delayed activities may be less detailed. Updated 
detailed plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of 
these activities.
    (3) For decommissioning plans that delay completion of 
decommissioning by including a period of storage or surveillance, the 
licensee shall provide that--
    (i) Funds needed to complete decommissioning be placed into an 
account segregated from the licensee's assets and outside the 
licensee's

[[Page 39303]]

administrative control during the storage or surveillance period, or a 
surety method or fund statement of intent be maintained in accordance 
with the criteria of Sec. 50.75(e); and
    (ii) Means be included for adjusting cost estimates and associated 
funding levels over the storage or surveillance period.
    (4) The proposed decommissioning plan must include--
    (i) The choice of the alternative for decommissioning with a 
description of activities involved. An alternative is acceptable if it 
provides for completion of decommissioning without significant delay. 
Consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for 
delayed completion of decommissioning only when necessary to protect 
the public health and safety. Factors to be considered in evaluating an 
alternative which provides for delayed completion of decommissioning 
include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site-
specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out 
decommissioning, including the presence of other nuclear facilities at 
the site.
    (ii) A description of the controls and limits on procedures and 
equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety;
    (iii) A description of the planned final radiation survey;
    (iv) An updated cost estimate for the chosen alternative for 
decommissioning, comparison of that estimate with present funds set 
aside for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of 
adequate funds for completion of decommissioning; and
    (v) A description of technical specifications, quality assurance 
provisions and physical security plan provisions in place during 
decommissioning.
    (5) If the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the 
decommissioning will be performed in accordance with the regulations in 
this chapter and will not be inimical to the common defense and 
security or to the health and safety of the public, and after notice to 
interested persons, the Commission will approve, by amendment, the plan 
subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and 
necessary. The approved decommissioning plan will be a supplement to 
the Safety Analysis report or equivalent.
    (6) The Commission will terminate the license if it determines 
that--
    (i) The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the 
approved decommissioning plan, and
    (ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation 
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release.
    (c) For a facility that has permanently ceased operation before the 
expiration of its license, the collection period for any shortfall of 
funds will be determined, upon application by the licensee, on a case-
by-case basis taking into account the specific financial situation of 
each licensee.
     29. Section 50.91, the introductory text is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 50.91  Notice for public comment; State consultation.

    The Commission will use the following procedures for an application 
requesting an amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed 
under Sec. 50.21(b) or Sec. 50.22 or for a testing facility, except for 
amendments subject to hearings governed by Secs. 2.1201-2.1263 of this 
chapter. For amendments subject to Secs. 2.1201-2.1263 of this chapter, 
the following procedures will apply only to the extent specifically 
referenced in Sec. 2.1205 (c) and (d) of this chapter:
* * * * *
    30. Section 50.111, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.111  Criminal penalties.

* * * * *
    (b) The regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 that are not issued under 
sections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of section 223 are as 
follows: Secs. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.8, 50.11, 50.12, 50.13, 
50.20, 50.21, 50.22, 50.23, 50.30, 50.31, 50.32, 50.33, 50.34a, 50.35, 
50.36b, 50.37, 50.38, 50.39, 50.40, 50.41, 50.42, 50.43, 50.45, 50.50, 
50.51, 50.52, 50.53, 50.56, 50.57, 50.58, 50.81, 50.90, 50.91, 50.92, 
50.100, 50.101, 50.102, 50.103, 50.109, 50.110, 50.111.
    31. Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 is amended by revising Section 
(I), the introductory text of Section (IV), and Section (IV)(C) to read 
as follows:

Appendix I to Part 50--Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and 
Limiting Conditions of Operation to Meet the Criterion ``As Low As Is 
Reasonably Achievable'' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents

    SECTION I. Introduction. Section 50.34a provides that an 
application for a permit to construct a nuclear power reactor shall 
include a description of the preliminary design of equipment to be 
installed to maintain control over radioactive materials in gaseous 
and liquid effluents produced during normal conditions, including 
expected occurrences. In the case of an application filed on or 
after January 2, 1971, the application must also identify the design 
objectives, and the means to be employed, for keeping levels of 
radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as 
practicable.
    Section 50.36a contains provisions designed to assure that 
releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to 
unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected 
occurrences, are kept as low as practicable.
* * * * *
    SEC. IV. Guides on technical specifications for limiting 
conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power 
reactors licensed under 10 CFR part 50. The guides on limiting 
conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power 
reactors set forth below may be used by an applicant for a license 
to operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor or a licensee 
who has submitted a certification of permanent cessation of 
operations under Sec. 50.82(a)(1) as guidance in developing 
technical specifications under Sec. 50.36a(a) to keep levels of 
radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as 
is reasonably achievable.
    Section 50.36a(b) provides that licensees shall be guided by 
certain considerations in establishing and implementing operating 
procedures specified in technical specifications that take into 
account the need for operating flexibility and at the same time 
assure that the licensee will exert his best effort to keep levels 
of radioactive material in effluents as low as is reasonably 
achievable. The guidance set forth below provides additional and 
more specific guidance to licensees in this respect.
    Through the use of the guides set forth in this section it is 
expected that the annual release of radioactive material in 
effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors can 
generally be maintained within the levels set forth as numerical 
guides for design objectives in Section II.
    At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of 
operations, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to 
assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even 
under unusual conditions which may temporarily result in releases 
higher than numerical guides for design objectives but still within 
levels that assure that the average population exposure is 
equivalent to small fractions of doses from natural background 
radiation. It is expected that in using this operational flexibility 
under unusual conditions, the licensee will exert his best efforts 
to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents within the 
numerical guides for design objectives.
* * * * *
    C. If the data developed in the surveillance and monitoring 
program described in paragraph B of Section III or from other 
monitoring programs show that the relationship between the 
quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous 
effluents and the dose to individuals in unrestricted areas is 
significantly different from that assumed in the calculations used 
to determine design objectives pursuant to Sections II and III, the 
Commission may modify the quantities in the technical

[[Page 39304]]

specifications defining the limiting conditions in a license to 
operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor or a license 
whose holder has submitted a certification of permanent cessation of 
operations under Sec. 50.82(a)(1).
* * * * *

PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC 
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

    32. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 
Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 
5842).

    Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; 
and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 42 U.S.C. 2243). 
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under 
secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, 
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). 
Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended 
by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141). 
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also under Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
10134(f)).
* * * * *
    33. Section 51.53, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 51.53  Supplement to environmental report.

* * * * *
    (b) Post operating license stage. Each applicant for a license 
amendment authorizing decommissioning activities for a production or 
utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on continuing 
use restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a 
license amendment approving a license termination plan or 
decommissioning plan under Sec. 50.82 of this chapter either for 
unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to 
the site; and each applicant for a license or license amendment to 
store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the 
operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its 
application the number of copies, as specified in Sec. 51.55, of a 
separate document, entitled ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental 
Report--Post Operating License Stage,'' which will update ``Applicant's 
Environmental Report--Operating License Stage,'' as appropriate, to 
reflect any new information or significant environmental change 
associated with the applicant's proposed decommissioning activities or 
with the applicant's proposed activities with respect to the planned 
storage of spent fuel. Unless otherwise required by the Commission, in 
accordance with the generic determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the 
provisions in Sec. 51.23(b), the applicant shall only address the 
environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license 
applied for. The ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post 
Operating License Stage'' may incorporate by reference any information 
contained in ``Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit 
Stage,'' ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating 
License Stage,'' final environmental impact statement, supplement to 
final environmental impact statement--operating license stage, or in 
the records of decision prepared in connection with the construction 
permit or the operating license for that facility.
* * * * *
    34. Section 51.95, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 51.95  Supplement to final environmental impact statement.

* * * * *
    (b) Post operating license stage. In connection with the amendment 
of an operating license authorizing decommissioning activities at a 
production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20, either for 
unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to 
the site, or with the issuance, amendment or renewal of a license to 
store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the 
operating license for the nuclear power reactor, the NRC staff will 
prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post 
operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, 
which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement or 
assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in 
the final environmental impact statement, the supplement to the final 
environmental impact statement--operating license stage, or in the 
records of decision prepared in connection with the construction permit 
or the operating license for that facility. The supplement will include 
a request for comments as provided in Sec. 51.73. Unless otherwise 
required by the Commission, in accordance with the generic 
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the provisions of Sec. 51.23(b), a 
supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating 
license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, will 
address the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the 
term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied for.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 19th day of July, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
 Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-19031 Filed 7-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P