Community advisory boards for nuclear power plants in decommissioning would benefit from being formed early in the process and with a clear framework for their function, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report made public Thursday.
The benefits of giving the plant operators a place on the panels, though, was debated as the agency gathered local input for the report to Congress: “In general, the issue of licensee participation centered on the potential conflict between the licensee’s interest in decommissioning and the community’s interests.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was required to prepare the report, on best practices for establishment and operation of the local boards, as part of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act signed into law in January 2019.
NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki submitted the document on July 1 to the top members from both parties on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee. An Environment and Public Works spokesperson on Thursday said only that the committee is reviewing the report.
The report was prepared by NRC staff, with input from the public through means including written comments, a questionnaire, and 11 meetings held from August to October 2019 in communities near active and retired commercial reactors. A total of 1,235 oral and written comments were provided by 216 commenters, the NRC said.
Decommissioning, per the regulator, is the safe retirement of a nuclear reactor and sufficient reduction of radioactivity for release of a property for other purposes. It generally involves decontamination and removal of most of the facility infrastructure. The NRC currently has oversight of decommissioning of 23 facilities, with at least five more reactors due to reach that phase in the next half-decade.
Community advisory boards (CABs) are broadly intended to enhance communication between the power plant operator and local stakeholders. They can be formed by the licensee, as well as by the applicable state or local government.
The report lists CABs for two power plants scheduled to close within five years: Indian Point in New York state and Diablo Canyon in California; five for sites in decommissioning: Humboldt Bay and San Onofre in California, Pilgrim in Massachusetts, Vermont Yankee, and Zion in Illinois; and five for facilities in which decommissioning is complete: Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts, Big Rock Point in Michigan, and Saxton in Pennsylvania.
“Based on the feedback through the eleven public meetings, webinars, questionnaire feedback, and current experience with CABs at decommissioning nuclear power reactors, the NRC staff encourages the formation of CABs to foster communication and information exchange between the licensee and the members of the community,” the report says.
A number of themes to be considered in developing the panels were identified through the comment period, including: considerations for early formation of CABs, developing the charter, local preferences for engagement, CAB membership, participation by the facility licensee, the schedule for meetings, engagement with the public, and funding.
Members of existing CABs said it was crucial to establish them soon after a licensee has informed the NRC of plans to retire a reactor, the report says. “Due to the complex issues involved in decommissioning, and the time needed for CAB members and public to become informed of the various issues involved in the process, CAB formation prior to shutdown of the reactor is likely to improve its overall effectiveness in working with the community and the licensee.”
Charters or other guidance documents for current CABs generally address the following issues, NRC staff determined: the purpose of the panel; selecting its members; logistics, budget, and other operational matters; procedures for meetings and votes; and requirements for engagement with the licensee, community, and other stakeholders.
There was unanimous agreement on the importance of engaging local residents in the formation and operation of the CABs, and that their membership should reflect the nearby communities.
Supporters of licensee membership and participation in the bodies emphasized the value of inside technical expertise on decommissioning, up to date understanding of ongoing and anticipated work, and open dialogue. Skeptics focused on issues with “sponsorship, voting rights, and influence on the CAB member selection process,” the report says.
Dedicated funding for boards is key, according to CAB members who commented to the NRC. “Many commenters stated that there are key expenses, including administrative costs, travel, expert consultations, website maintenance, annual reports, and other communication methods, that should not be subject to discretionary funding or control by an outside entity.”
