The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s proposed set of rules for nuclear power reactors in decommissioning could leave taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in costs in the event of a major accident, according to four U.S. senators.
Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) aired a number of concerns about scope and perceived omissions in the ongoing rulemaking in an Aug. 3 letter to NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki. Markey’s office released the letter on Aug. 7.
“The proposed rule, as presented by NRC staff, would not establish the proper checks to ensure the safety and security of these plants as they move through the decommissioning process,” according to the senators, who noted they all represent states where atomic energy facilities have closed in recent years or are preparing to cease operations.
In all, 20 commercial nuclear power reactors are being decommissioned, Markey has said. Ten more are already due to close from 2019 to 2050.
The NRC began the rulemaking in 2015, and agency staff in May submitted a long list of recommendations for review by the five-person commission. They include a graded approach for relaxing requirements for emergency preparedness, physical security, cybersecurity, and off- and on-site insurance at closed nuclear power plants. The commission could direct revisions to the proposal, after which a vote on a final rules package is anticipated in fall 2019.
The process is intended to apply specific regulations to power plants that are making the transition from operations to decommissioning. Those facilities, particularly once used fuel is placed into dry storage, are seen to pose less danger than active sites, but presently remain subject to the same federal regulations. The intent is to relieve owners from having to request amendments to their NRC license or exemptions from regulations applied to sites that are still producing energy.
One proposal that worried the four lawmakers is reductions in financial protection requirements against liability claims. Under the NRC staff proposal, shuttered reactors at a certain point would be allowed to reduce the off-site requirement from $450 million to $100 million and the on-site requirement from $1.06 billion to $50 billion. That reduction could be triggered when all spent fuel has been moved from the reactor to the cooling pool and has “cooled sufficiently that it cannot heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours under adiabatic conditions,” according to the staff regulatory analysis for the proposed rules package.
The senators took exception with the NRC staff finding that $100 million covered all off-site liability claims connected to the 1978 partial meltdown of reactor Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. “We remain concerned that this drastically underestimates the potential for a disaster, and this proposal could end up costing taxpayers and local communities millions in the event a serious accident occurs,” they wrote.
While the lawmakers acknowledged the complications created by the current system of “regulating by exemption,” they said the commission had missed an “historic opportunity to implement specific regulations that would ensure that local communities are protected and decommissioned nuclear plants are as safe as possible.”
Among other failures in the process, according to the four:
- Underestimating the amount of time that retired nuclear power plants are likely to be stuck with their used fuel, until the Department of Energy meets its legal requirement to remove the radioactive material. The regulatory analysis says NRC staff forecast the time at 16 years, which the senators said discounts political and financial barriers to off-site storage and construction of a permanent repository.
- “[C]ontinuing to rubber-stamp” the report plant owners must file with the NRC within two years of site closure, setting out the plan and anticipated cost for decommissioning. While agency staff had considered recommending requiring commission approval of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities reports, that did not make it into the proposed rules package.
- Decreased opportunities for public participation as decommissioning proceeds at a nuclear site. As an example, they noted the proposed rules package would not mandate yearly releases of public information on emergency planning when a reactor’s used fuel in fully transferred to the cooling pool.
There was no immediate word this week on whether Svinicki had responded to the senators’ letter.
“The Commission will reply to Congressional correspondence through its usual procedures,” an NRC spokesman said by email. “The Commission continues to consider the proposed draft decommissioning rule. Once the Commission reaches a decision on the proposed rule, it will provide the staff whatever additional guidance it deems appropriate on publishing the proposed draft for public comment.”
