Draft guidance for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ongoing reactor decommissioning rulemaking could create additional hassles for nuclear utilities – the opposite of the purpose of the process, according to an organization representing closed nuclear power plants around the nation.
“There are multiple instances in which the proposed guidance documents do not align with the stated scope and intent of the draft proposed rule,” Wayne Norton, chair of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition steering committee, wrote in a July 23 letter to NRC Executive Director for Operations Margaret Doane. “If not resolved, these inconsistencies could potentially result in changes to and divergences from the current licensing basis across the spectrum of our member sites.”
The commission in May received NRC staff’s recommendations for the rulemaking initiated in 2015, which is intended to reduce the need for nuclear power providers to request license amendments or exemptions to regulations for operational plants once they have closed. The idea is that shuttered nuclear reactors, particularly those where all spent fuel is placed in dry storage, are safer than their operating counterparts and so should not be guided by the same rules.
Among a long list of recommendations, the proposed decommissioning rules package would offer a graded approach to reducing requirements for site emergency preparedness, physical security, cybersecurity, and off- and on-site insurance.
Along with the rules proposal, the NRC in June issued preliminary versions of regulatory guides on nuclear power reactor decommissioning, emergency planning for reactor decommissioning, assuring funds are available for decommissioning reactors, and the format and content of for post-shutdown decommissioning activities reports. The guides are supposed to aid utilities in complying with the final rules, which the commission is expected to vote on in fall 2019.
The Decommissioning Plant Coalition worries facilities that are placed in “Standalone ISFSI” status under the new rules would not be treated the same as those already under that designation, even though they effectively have the same safety and security situations, Norton wrote.
“Under these conditions, the NRC will inevitably find itself with some licensees requesting exemptions from requirements that apply to them, but not to others, as well as stakeholders seeking to apply requirements to sites that are not subject to a particular set of requirements,” he stated. “The outcome would be contrary to the stated goal of improving regulatory clarity and enhance overall regulatory transparency.”
The NRC, as of March 2018, listed 10 standalone ISFSI sites around the country: properties where the nuclear plant has been decommissioned, leaving only the independent spent fuel storage installation, or where there was only a storage pad to begin with. That includes at least two former power plants represented by the coalition: Maine Yankee and Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts.
In total, the 17-year-old organization has represented 11 closed nuclear power plants from coast to coast.
As one example of the coalition’s concerns, Norton noted that nuclear plants no longer need certified fuel handlers once all waste has been placed in dry storage and the site is left only with the ISFSI. But the draft guidance does not acknowledge this reality at any point, he said: “The failure to clarify that the CHF position is no longer needed implicitly suggests that the position cannot be eliminated without some additional approval, such as an exemption.”
The Decommissioning Plant Coalition is asking the NRC staff and commissioners to reassess the proposed rules proposal and draft guidance to ensure “clarity and consistency” in the rulemaking process and avoid “unintended adverse consequences.”
Agency staff is reviewing the letter, the only one received to date on the draft guidance, an NRC spokesman said.
The rulemaking proposal and draft guidance have been released, but the NRC’s public comment period has not formally opened. “The plan, pending Commission approval and direction, is to publish both the proposed rule and the draft guidance for public comment at or about the same time,” according to NRC spokesman David McIntyre. “Obviously, the Commission may direct changes when it makes its decision.”
The nuclear industry is continuing its review of the proposal, according to Rod McCullum, senior director for fuel and decommissioning at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s Washington, D.C.-based lobbying arm.
McCullum said NEI is likely to echo the coalition’s concerns when it submits its formal comments. The organization “understands that the DPC’s concerns are of high significance for sites that have already completed decommissioning and achieved “standalone ISFSI” status,” he said by email. “Many of the DPC’s members are in, or progressing to, this status. So we certainly appreciate DPCs efforts to bring these to the NRC’s attention early. Our detailed comments, which we will submit during the public comment period, will be informed by the dialogue that the DPC has now enjoined with NRC.”
