[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