[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 73 (Friday, April 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18833-18835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9536]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70
[Docket No. PRM-30-61]
Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a
petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) submitted by the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its
regulations governing timeliness of decommissioning of sites and
separate buildings or outdoor areas. Because the petitioner has
provided no new significant information that would call into question
the basis for the requirements in these regulations, the NRC denies the
petition. To achieve the intent of the petition, NRC will develop
guidance to clarify specific criteria to review licensee requests for
alternate schedules for initiation of decommissioning of inactive
contaminated sites.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the PRM, the public comments received, and the
NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or
copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, (lower
level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony DiPalo, telephone (301) 415-
6191, e-mail, [email protected], of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On August 21, 1996 (61 FR 43193), the NRC published a notice of
receipt of a PRM filed by the NEI. The petitioner requested that NRC
amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 to provide for an
alternative which could result in the delay of decommissioning of a
site, separate building, or outdoor area where principal activities
have not been conducted for at least 24 months, and the site, separate
building, or outdoor area is unsuitable for unrestricted release in
accordance with NRC requirements. Specifically, the petitioner
requested that inactive facilities be allowed to go on ``standby''
status until economic conditions in its industry improved. The
petitioner believes the requested changes are necessary because the
rule, as written, has the potential to . . . ``eliminate important
components from the nuclear industry infrastructure.'' The petitioner
also asserted as a basis for its petition that NRC's regulations were
not intended to give it jurisdiction over the commercial aspects of a
licensee's activities and, therefore, NRC regulations should not impose
restrictions on facilities or sites that have the potential to impact
commercial decisions. Further, the petitioner believes that NRC's
current regulation is not necessary given the cohesiveness and maturity
of the industry today.
Public Comments on the Petition
The notice of receipt of the PRM invited interested persons to
submit comments. The comment period closed on November 4, 1996. NRC
received comment letters from the following five organizations: (1)
Kennecott Energy; (2) Siemens Power Corporation; (3) Wyoming Mining
Association; (4) National Mining Association; and (5) Babcock & Wilcox,
Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. All five commenters supported the PRM.
They supported amending the Timeliness Rule to permit facilities to
postpone decommissioning and enter a ``standby'' mode in which
facilities would be monitored and maintained for a predetermined time
period, pending future operation.
[[Page 18834]]
The comments are summarized as follows:
1. All five commenters argued that the Timeliness Rule, as
currently written, impacts on a licensee's ability to make commercial
decisions that allow it to compete in the open market. The commenters
believe that any company that has a valid NRC license and operates
within the conditions of the license should have the right to decide
when to start and stop operations, and when to place buildings or
facilities in standby mode, rather than being forced to begin
decommissioning.
2. Three commenters expressed the opinion that NRC's rationale
requiring decommissioning after 24 months of inactivity is no longer
practical, given the cohesiveness and maturity of today's nuclear
industry. The commenters stated that NRC previously rejected a proposal
for a standby mode because of the potential for site abandonment as a
result of changes in a company's financial status, corporate takeover,
or bankruptcy. The commenters believe that the nuclear industry has now
matured and that poorly financed and poorly managed companies are no
longer in business. The remaining companies are said to be stable and
willing and able to assume the costs associated with keeping facilities
in standby mode.
3. Two commenters argued that the Timeliness Rule is regulation by
exception. These commenters believe that it would be better to include
generic provisions in the regulations for maintaining a licensed
facility in standby mode, rather than approving individual requests for
postponement of the initiation of decommissioning.
4. One commenter argued the petitioner's case that the lack of a
standby provision in the Timeliness Rule has the potential to eliminate
important components from the nuclear industry. It is believed that
these components and facilities may be needed in future years to
support continuing operation and potential industry expansion. The
commenter indicated that fuel cycle facilities operate in a constantly
changing economic environment. Mines and mills that have been inactive
for years are now beginning to start up because of improved economic
conditions. The operating status of conversion facilities and
enrichment plants has fluctuated in response to international policy
and the influx of low-enriched products from countries of the former
Soviet Union. Commercial facilities that support the armed forces must
be prepared to respond if called on.
Reasons for Denial
NRC is denying the petition for the following reasons:
1. NRC believes the current language of the Timeliness Rule is
sufficiently flexible to accommodate the petitioner's concerns because
it currently contains provisions for granting licensees alternative
time schedules for initiating decommissioning. NRC also believes that
clarification of the specific acceptance criteria for granting
alternative schedules could be achieved through the development of
guidance.
2. NRC believes that the amendments requested by the petitioner
would conflict with the primary purpose of the Timeliness Rule to
effectively and efficiently clean up contaminated sites that pose a
potential threat to public health and safety. The Timeliness Rule was
promulgated in July 1994 to address those situations where
decommissioning of contaminated sites was unreasonably delayed. The 24-
month inactivity criterion related to decontamination of unused sites,
separate buildings, or outdoor areas provides assurance that the
licensee will undertake timely cleanup of inactive portions of its site
while it is financially solvent.
3. Although the petitioner argues that the nuclear industry has
matured and recognizes its responsibilities, that troubled licensees
are no longer in business, and that NRC regulations provide adequate
decommissioning funding assurance and transfer of ownership
requirements, the NRC's experience with inactive materials licensees
indicates the need for the timeliness provisions. In fact, since the
Timeliness Rule became effective in 1994, approximately 25 material
licensees have filed for bankruptcy. Past history with NRC materials
facility decommissioning indicates that the approach taken through the
Timeliness Rule is the appropriate one.
4. NRC believes that the petitioner is incorrect in asserting that
the Timeliness Rule, as currently written, has the potential to
eliminate important components from the nuclear industry
infrastructure. For case-specific situations, delay of decommissioning
is permitted by the current rule if the Commission determines that this
relief would not be detrimental to the public health and safety and
would otherwise be in the public interest. Licensees must describe why
their request to delay decommissioning is in the public interest.
Therefore, if the licensee can satisfactorily demonstrate that a
proposed delay in decommissioning is not detrimental to public health
and safety and is in the public interest, the delay would be granted
and there should be no adverse impact on the nuclear industry
infrastructure.
Since the effective date of the Timeliness Rule, August 15, 1994,
fewer than 30 licensees out of several thousand have asked to delay
decommissioning activities and only three of these requests were
initially denied. Each denial resulted from a lack of adequate
justification. After discussions with the licensees, two of these three
requests were withdrawn and one request was approved. Based on the
relatively few requests received to date, the NRC concludes that the
Timeliness Rule, as written, is not overly restrictive. Further, since
NRC has not denied any request to delay decommissioning that was
supported with adequate justification, it appears that the rule is not
having an adverse impact on licensees' commercial decisions, as
suggested by the petitioner.
5. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), entitled
``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-0586), prepared in connection with the 1988
modifications to the decommissioning regulations recommended prompt
dismantlement of material facilities once they had permanently ceased
operation. The GEIS concluded that decommissioning can be accomplished
safely and at a reasonable cost shortly after cessation of activities.
Further, the GEIS concluded that immediate decommissioning following
cessation of activities eliminates the potential problems that may
result from an increasing number of contaminated sites, and the
potential health, safety, regulatory, and economic problems associated
with maintaining an inactive nuclear facility. The Timeliness Rule
imposed certain ``action-forcing'' requirements to ensure that the
recommendations in the GEIS were met.
In conclusion, no new significant information has been provided by
the petitioner that calls into question the basis for the requirements
of the Timeliness Rule. The intent of the petition will be achieved by
developing guidance on the specific criteria for reviewing licensee
request submittals for alternate schedules for the initiation of
decommissioning of inactive contaminated sites. Obviously, if the
petitioner believes that the final guidance documents and their
implementation do not adequately address the intent of the petition,
the petitioner has the option of resubmitting
[[Page 18835]]
the petition. For the reasons cited in this document, NRC denies the
petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank J. Miraglia,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 99-9536 Filed 4-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P