Karl Herchenroeder
RW Monitor
11/13/2015
As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission works toward a 2019 rulemaking that could alter the regulatory process for decommissioning nuclear power plants, a panel of industry and government representatives this week aired concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the existing process.
The ANS Winter Meeting and Nuclear Technology Expo panel, “Decommissioning Regulatory Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants,” discussed various regulation issues, including license amendment action, exemptions to emergency planning and security requirements, and decommissioning funding considerations.
While there was agreement among the panel members that current regulations for operating reactors are robust and predictable, the same cannot be said on the back end, when a reactor moves into permanent shutdown. Eric Leeds, a senior nuclear safety consultant for Talisman who spent 30 years with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the framework relies too heavily on emergency-planning and security-requirement exemptions, which opens the process up to challenges from state and local authorities.
“That’s a really bad place to be, for a numbers of reasons,” Leeds said.
On the licensing end, Leeds said NRC staff follows a mature, predictable framework that has been developed over the years. With decommissioning, he said, the regulatory framework is very sparse in regard to emergency planning and security requirements.
“Once you’re dealing with exemptions, you are outside the strike zone,” Leeds said. “You have an uncertain regulatory process.”
The NRC is addressing regulatory reform, with the goal of completing a rulemaking on decommissioning by 2019.
“Operating by exemptions is just not where we want to be,” said Exelon’s Chris Wilson. “It’s unpredictable, costly and it’s just not a good place to be.”
Tom Magette, managing director of capital projects and infrastructure at PwC, agreed that the regulatory process has been a moving target for nearly a decade, dating to 2006, when NRC staff initiated an effort to review and revise its regulatory guides.
“We don’t have that mature, predictable, reliable regulatory framework that (Leeds) mentioned,” Magette said.
Leeds urged the industry to get involved in the rulemaking.
