By Wayne Barber
Four Northeast states are calling for better consideration of states’ needs in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decommissioning rulemaking.
The rulemaking, due for completion in 2019, is intended to improve the process for decommissioning of nuclear power reactors, notably by limiting the need for regulatory exemptions on emergency preparedness and other operational matters for facilities that pose a reduced safety threat than they did before closing.
The regulator accepted public comments through June 13 on its preliminary draft regulatory analysis for the rulemaking, which includes alternatives and cost and benefit analyses for potential rules updates to be considered in the process.
In comments submitted that day, the four-state coalition of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont said the NRC has not treated their concerns “on equal footing with the viewpoints raised by power reactor licensees and industry representatives.” “A rebalancing is in order,” the states said.
For example, the four Northeast states said preliminary comments they filed in 2016 have been largely overlooked to date. “Many of the States’ suggestions were not addressed at all, and the ones that were addressed were minimized and would not even be mandated,” according to the state filing.
The states said they had urged the NRC to direct nuclear licensees to carry out a full site assessment and characterization before submitting their post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR). NRC staff instead suggested only that licensees provide some additional information in the PSDAR.
A number of issues the states have urged be addressed in the rulemaking are instead being considered as nonbinding regulatory guidance, including decommissioning timelines, whether the NRC should approve a licensee’s PSDAR, and what role states and local governments should have in the process, according to the letter.
Vermont and the other three states urged that a number of recommendations be considered during the rulemaking process, including: ensuring states and the jurisdictions that house nuclear plants have a “meaningful role” in decommissioning; requiring the NRC to approve post-shutdown decommissioning activities reports, and for the commission otherwise to ensure “affirmative regulatory authority” over the process; eliminating the SAFSTOR decommissioning method under which site restoration can be delayed for up to six decades; and sustaining current rules limiting decommissioning trust fund disbursements to decommissioning expenses only
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the lobbying arm for the industry, said in its own June 13 comments that it “strongly urges the agency to continue on a path of completing a rulemaking to improve the efficiency of the transition from operations to decommissioning as expeditiously as possible.”
When a nuclear unit is retired, it does not automatically transition to a new regulatory status as a decommissioned reactor, NEI said. Instead, it continues to be regulated according to its operating license until license exemptions and amendments can be approved, which adds to the administrative burden on industry and the regulator. “Currently, nuclear plant owners must submit eight to 12 requests for license exemptions, and amendments take 12 to 18 months to complete, resulting in millions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures,” the industry group said.
The NRC has proposed a change to the regulations to apply graded standards for emergency preparedness. NEI agreed that there should be explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing emergency preparedness requirements for a power reactor that has permanently ceased operations from those for an operating power reactor.
The NRC staff’s preliminary draft regulatory analysis was released in May, about a month after the regulator issued its draft regulatory basis for the rulemaking. The regulatory basis is expected to be published on Oct. 23.