Add new comment

       The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released a regulatory analysis of the regulatory basis supporting a “rulemaking” to change the NRC’s decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC has multiple goals for changes to the current regulations. First, they want to make the decommissioning process more efficient. Second, they want to reduce the need for granting exemptions to existing regulations. Third, they are going to consider other decommissioning issues that are identified as relevant by the NRC staff. Fourth, they want to support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability.
        The NRC is recommending rule making in the areas of “emergency planning, physical security, cyber security, drug and alcohol testing, training requirements for certified fuel handlers, decommissioning trust funds, applicability of backfitting provisions, and offsite and onsite financial protection requirements and indemnity agreements.”
        The revised regulations would “formalize steps to transition a power reactor from operating status to decommissioning while reducing the need for exemptions and license amendments.” There are also recommendations to clarify requirements regarding topics such as spent fuel management and environmental reporting.
        In addition to the recommendations for rule making, there are also updates for guidance that deals with aging management, the proper roles for State and local governments in the decommissioning process, the level of NRC review of a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, the options that exist for decommissioning and the schedule for decommissioning.
        The regulatory analysis was carried out in order to assess the economic impact on the nuclear industry, government and society that would be the result of the rule making and guidance contemplated by the NRC. The NRC staff laid out the various decommissioning alternatives and discussed the cost benefit analysis. The conclusion is that the staff recommendations for rule making and guidance development is ultimately cost beneficial to the nuclear industry, government and society.
       Four Democratic sent a letter to the NRC warning that the new rulemaking and guidance updates could pose a threat to safety, security and emergency preparedness with respect to decommissioning nuclear power plants.
       Senator Ed Markey, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the four authors of the letter, said “We need a decommissioning rule that acts as a plan for addressing the myriad difficult issues, including the challenges posed by climate change like rising sea levels, that communities will face as nuclear power plants across the country prepare to shut down. The challenge of decommissioning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in a safe and expeditious manner would only be greater because of this draft rule.”
       “This is a missed opportunity to put down a marker for smarter decommissioning, and I urge the Commission to strengthen this draft rule to ensure safety not expediency is paramount. I will be following up with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to understand why key provisions requested by the public are missing from this proposed decommissioning rule.”
       Earlier this year, Senators Ed Markley, Kamala D. Harris, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand co-sponsored legislation to “…improve the safety and security of decommissioning reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear plants across the nation.” Markley has also introduced the Dry Cask Storage Act. This legislation would require that every nuclear reactor operator comply with an NRC-approve plan that requires that the spent nuclear fuel at a decommissioned plant be safely removed and placed in dry casks storage within seven years of the time that the decommissioning plan was submitted to the NRC.