[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46057-46061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSSION
[NRC-2015-0182]
Financial Planning for Management of Radioactive Byproduct
Material
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Financial scoping study; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct a
financial scoping study to determine if financial planning requirements
for decommissioning and end-of-life management for some radioactive
byproduct material are necessary. The NRC is seeking stakeholder input
and perspective on this action. Respondents are asked to consider
recommendations from recent studies addressing this topic, national and
international activities, and specific questions posed by the NRC staff
in this notice when preparing their responses.
DATES: Submit comments by October 19, 2015. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitted
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0182. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
[[Page 46058]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Whited, telephone: 301-415-1154;
email: [email protected] or James Shaffner, telephone: 301-415-5496;
email: [email protected], both are staff of the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0182 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0182.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0182 in the subject line of your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
The issue of adequacy of financial mechanisms for end-of-life
management of disused Category 1 and 2 sealed sources \1\ was raised in
the 2006 report by the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task
Force (Task Force) (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/task-force.html). The Task Force, comprised of 14 Federal agencies and the
Organization of Agreement States, was created by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 to evaluate the status of various factors affecting the
security of Category 1 and 2 sealed sources. This resulted in the 2006
Task Force report recommendation 9-2 that the NRC ``evaluate the
financial assurance required for possession of Category 1 and 2
radioactive sources to assure that funding is available for final
disposition of the sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of
Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources lists 26
radionuclides and identifies three threshold activity levels for
each, referred to as Categories 1, 2, and 3. These levels are based
upon the relative health hazards each radionuclide would present if
not kept under adequate controls. The Category 1 and 2 quantities of
radioactive sources are considered the most risk significant and
have been the focus of Federal and State efforts to enact tighter
security controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in the NRC staff's 2007 ``Strategic Assessment of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Regulatory Program'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071350291) (Strategic
Assessment), financial assurance scoping for byproduct material was
identified as one of seven high priorities. The Strategic Assessment
identified the issue more broadly than the Task Force, whose charter
was to focus on security related to Category 1 and 2 sources. In fact,
the NRC staff proposed to also review the ``adequacy of financial
assurance requirements to anticipate the ultimate costs of disposal of
or dispositioning radioactive sources not addressed by the Task Force''
(emphasis added, Appendix C, p. C-21).
Two recent drivers that prompted the NRC staff to initiate this
financial scoping study were specific recommendations related to
financial planning in the 2014 Task Force report (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14219A642) and recommendations related to financial assurance in a
March 2014 report issued by the Low-Level Waste (LLW) Forum Disused
Sources Working Group (ADAMS Accession No. ML14084A394) (2014 Disused
Sources Working Group report). These recommendations are discussed in
detail later in this Federal Register notice (FRN).
During a September 18, 2014, Commission briefing on management of
low-level waste, high-level waste, and spent nuclear fuel, the Director
of the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection (now
the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs)
stressed the timeliness of a scoping study related to financial
requirements for end-of-life management of byproduct material, in
particular disused radioactive sealed sources (transcript of ``Briefing
on Management of Low-Level Waste, High Level Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel'' is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14265A396):
The 2007 programmatic assessment [i.e., the Strategic Assessment
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Regulatory Program] included an activity to perform a scoping
study of the need to revise or expand byproduct material financial
assurance. Resource constraints unfortunately delayed that
initiative. However, it has become more important and timely based
upon the recommendation of the 2014 Radiation Source Protection and
Security Task Force report as well as a report prepared by the Low-
Level Waste Forum Task Group on disused cell [sealed] sources. And
the staff now intends to focus on this important and emerging issue.
In its September 24, 2014, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14267A365) in response to the briefing, the
Commission stated that ``[t]he staff should provide the Commission with
the results of the byproduct financial scoping study and provide
recommendations on next steps.'' The staff received subsequent
administrative instructions to report the results of the scoping study
and recommendations by April 13, 2015. In preparing a response to the
Commission in compliance with the first directive in the SRM, the staff
determined that the byproduct material financial scoping study would
benefit from much broader stakeholder involvement than was originally
envisioned. The four primary reasons for the expanded involvement are
as follows:
1. Recent reports (the 2014 Task Force report and the 2014 Disused
Sources Working Group report) addressing this topic have been generated
by a limited group of Federal and State stakeholders. The views and
perspectives of
[[Page 46059]]
important external stakeholders such as industry, users groups, and
current licensees are needed to fully inform the scoping study and any
subsequent NRC staff's recommendations.
2. Currently, there are a number of ongoing national initiatives
and activities that could add perspective to the staff's consideration
of options and recommendations to address byproduct material financial
planning.
3. Financial planning associated with end-of-life management of
byproduct material has also garnered the attention of the international
community. The financial scoping study would benefit from consideration
of international experience and perspectives.
4. An NRC internal working group has identified a number of topical
areas that are relevant to financial planning. Broader stakeholder
input would assist the NRC staff in analyzing these topical areas and
potentially identifying other financial planning issues.
Additional background discussion for items 1, 2 and 3 is provided
below. The NRC staff is requesting that respondents consider this
background information when developing and providing their comments.
Item 4 is addressed in the ``Request for Comments'' section of this
FRN.
A. Recommendations Warranting Broader Review
The NRC staff believes that the following recommendations warrant
broader review in the scoping study and asks that respondents consider
them when developing their comments.
Summary recommendations from the report by the Interagency Working
Group (IWG) on Financial Assurance for Disposition of Category 1, 2,
and 3 Radioactive Sealed Sources (ADAMS Accession No. ML100050105). To
address the financial assurance concerns raised in the 2006 Task Force
Report, an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Financial Assurance for
Disposition of Category 1, 2, and 3 Radioactive Sealed Sources was
established in December 2008. The IWG was tasked with proposing a
comprehensive list of viable financial assurance solutions to increase
the likelihood that Category 1, 2, and 3 radioactive sealed sources
will be disposed of in a safe, appropriate and timely manner. The IWG
identified three main areas of concern: (1) lack of disposal capacity
for sources, (2) an inadequate supply of containers for transportation
of these sources for final disposition/disposal, and (3) storage of
these sources by licensees for extended periods of time.
The IWG recognized that certain financial assurance options may
mitigate, but not resolve, these concerns. Possible options considered
in the evaluation included:
1. Develop risk-based financial assurance requirements and lower
financial assurance thresholds in Sec. 30.35 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations to capture all Category 1, 2, and 3 radioactive
sealed sources.
2. Assess a universal surcharge on all licensees to cover the cost
of disposal.
3. Assess an up-front surcharge on all new Category 1, 2, and 3
sources to cover the entire anticipated cost of packaging and disposal.
The IWG report has recently been made publicly available. The
recommendations from the IWG report were also articulated in the 2010
Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force report (ADAMS
Accession No. ML102230141).
Recommendation 2 of the 2014 Task Force Report. The 2014 Task Force
report highlighted that significant progress has been made to address
the commercial sealed source management and disposal challenges
identified in the 2006 and 2010 Task Force reports. Disposal options
for many commercial Class A, B, and C sealed sources are now available
to Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) generators in all 50 states,
including the 36 states which had been without such an option when the
2010 Task Force report was published. The 2014 Task Force report
further discussed that progress has also been made in addressing
ongoing challenges regarding both the transportation and disposal of
the highest activity sealed sources. The Task Force noted that although
disposal options for many sealed sources are now available, there are
currently few incentives for generators to dispose of their disused
sealed sources in a timely fashion. In addition, commercial disposal
options are still unavailable for many Category 1 and 2 sources, and
challenges remain regarding the availability of certified Type B
shipping containers required for transport of these sources.
Consequently, the 2014 Task Force report contains a specific
recommendation, recommendation 2, related to financial planning:
The Task Force recommends that the NRC evaluate the need for
sealed source licensees to address the eventual disposition/disposal
costs of Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive sources through
source disposition/disposal financial planning or other mechanisms.
Disposition costs should include the cost of packaging, transport,
and disposal (when available) of these sources.
Recommendations from the 2014 Disused Sources Working Group Report.
The 2014 Disused Sources Working Group report contained a
recommendation that the NRC develop financial assurance requirements
for sealed source radionuclides of concern for all categories. The
report suggested that the requirement apply to general licensees as
well as specific licensees. The vast majority of licensees possessing
Category 1 and 2 sources are specific licensees. However, some sources
in the lower categories (Category 3-5) are possessed under a general
license. The Disused Sources Working Group offered several
recommendations directly related to financial assurance:
1. To encourage timely disposal, the NRC should develop robust
financial assurance requirements for all licensees with sources that
pose a threat to national security (Categories 1 through 3). The
financial assurance requirements should be adequate to cover the entire
cost of packaging, transport, and disposal.
2. The existing NRC-Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors (CRCPD) program should be adequately funded to address
orphaned and abandoned sources throughout the U.S. Individual states
should retain the ability to operate their own orphaned and abandoned
source programs, such as is currently done in Texas.
3. Federal research agencies should require applicants to budget
for the full life-cycle cost of use and disposition in grant
applications.
B. Relevant National Activities Related to Byproduct Material Financial
Planning
In recent years, several important activities have ensued related
to byproduct material financial assurance. The NRC invites public
comment and perspective as to the impact that these activities,
individually or in combination, may have on financial planning related
to end-of-life management of radioactive sealed sources (or other
byproduct material):
1. The NRC staff published a revised Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation Branch Technical Position (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14169A380), which increased the recommended activity limit for Cs-137
disposal from 30 curies to 130 curies allowing disposal of more Cs-137
sources (February 2015).
2. The Waste Control Specialists disposal facility in Texas was
authorized to collect and dispose of sealed sources on April 25, 2012.
[[Page 46060]]
3. The Department of Energy National Nuclear Security
Administration's (DOE/NNSA) Office of Radiological Security (ORS),
formerly Global Threat Reduction Initiative (http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/reducingthreats) continued to offer federally-
funded security upgrades based on best practices. When requested by a
licensee, the ORS works to assess existing security conditions, provide
recommendations on security enhancements, and, when warranted, fund the
procurement and installation of jointly agreed-upon security best
practices. These voluntary security enhancements complement and do not
replace the NRC's current requirements. Also, some sealed sources are
recovered through ORS' Offsite Source Recovery Project.
4. The Source Collection and Threat Reduction Program (SCATR)
(http://www.crcpd.org/StateServices/SCATR.aspx), administered by the
CRCPD, was created in early 2007 to provide sealed source licensees in
States which do not have access to a LLW disposal facility an
opportunity to dispose of certain unwanted radioactive sealed sources.
SCATR is funded through a grant provided by the DOE/NNSA.
5. New Type B packages were available for use beginning in 2014.
DOE/NNSA's ORS procured vendor services for the design, development,
testing, and certification of two Type B packages to support the
recovery and transportation of Category 1 and Category 2 sources
commonly used in irradiators and cancer treatment devices. The new
containers will enable shipment of nearly 100 percent of all
commercially used devices containing Cs-137 and cobalt-60 (Co-60).
6. The CRCPD is currently convening a working group to consider
revising Agreement State financial planning requirements, to include
restructuring the criteria used to determine what radioactive material
requires financial surety to ensure proper end-of-life management,
particularly (but not exclusively) Category 1 and 2 sealed sources.
C. Recent International Activities Related to Byproduct Financial
Planning
The staff is also aware of recent activities in the international
community related to byproduct material financial planning. In November
2014, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-1.3 was released, which
summarizes the reviewed information distributed in previous IAEA
publications. It also provides an up-to-date, overall picture of the
management of disused sealed radioactive sources based upon the current
status and trends in this field. Section 5.5 of the publication
addresses aspects of financing including cost distribution, cost
uncertainty, and financial implications of the lack of availability of
an ownership transfer path.
Further, the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Nuclear Fuel
and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management requires that
contracting parties address aspects of end-of-life source management.
Respondents to this request with insight into relevant
international initiatives are invited to provide their perspectives
regarding international best practices or other experiences that the
NRC staff should consider.
III. Request for Comments
The NRC is conducting this financial scoping study to determine if
financial planning requirements for decommissioning and end-of-life
management for some radioactive byproduct material are necessary. The
NRC is seeking stakeholder input and perspective on this action.
Respondents are asked to consider the background material discussed in
Section II above when preparing their comments and insights. In
addition, the NRC staff requests that respondents consider the
following topical areas, and specifically the eight questions listed
below, that an NRC staff internal working group has identified.
Consideration of Feasible Disposition Paths Other Than Disposal
Disposition pathways other than disposal may be available and
appropriate for sources, including reuse and recycling. Factors
important for financial planning for these disposition pathways may be
significantly different from those associated with disposal.
Question 1: What disposition pathways are available to various
licensee types beyond the traditional disposal pathway and should be
considered in any potential new financial planning requirements?
Establishing Funding Requirements for Dispositioning
Establishing appropriate and equitable funding requirements
sufficient for the disposition of certain individual sources is a
challenge. Funding requirements must account for interim storage,
conditioning, and packaging for transportation and disposal, as well as
the transportation and disposal costs. In many cases it is difficult to
establish accurate values for each of these elements even with current
information. Further, there will be uncertainty regarding the adequacy
of financial surety requirements in the future. Some sealed sources may
have a service life of decades; therefore, a financial surety
established today may not be adequate 20 to 30 years from now. At
present, it may be easier to articulate an appropriate decommissioning
funding plan or fixed dollar amount for Category 3 and 4 sources than
for Category 1 and 2 sources at present. That is because disposal
access is more readily available for smaller sources.
Question 2: What should be the primary considerations in
establishing and imposing appropriate and equitable financial planning
requirements on radioactive sealed sources?
Timeliness in Declaring Disused Sources
Currently there is no NRC requirement for licensees to declare
licensed sources as disused (although they are encouraged to do so).
Financial planning requirements may establish an appropriate time (for
example two years) for applying requirements to sources considered
disused by the licensee.
Question 3: Should licensees be required to specifically declare
disused sources? If so, how long after a source is disused must a
licensee declare it as disused?
Source Characteristics
Financial planning must also account for source characteristics
such as type of radioactive material, half-life, physical form, and
remaining useful life. For relatively short half-life byproduct
material, there is a need to evaluate the equitable application (and
removal) of financial planning requirements for sources that may decay
below the quantities of concern.
Question 4: How should source characteristics be factored into
establishing equitable financial planning requirements for end-of-life
management?
Compatibility With Agreement State Requirements
Any NRC rulemaking must involve Agreement State regulators in
determining the compatibility category assigned to a potential rule.
Question 5: If NRC rulemaking is initiated as a result of this
scoping study, how should NRC engage with and consider the impact on
Agreement States? What would be the primary considerations in
establishing
[[Page 46061]]
compatibility levels for rule requirements?
Applicability to General Licensees
The applicability of financial planning requirements to licensees
possessing generally licensed sealed sources should be considered.
According to the 2014 Disused Sources Working Group report, there are
at least a few licensees who possess generally licensed sources in
quantities of concern.
Question 6: When necessary, what mechanism should be used to
administer financial planning requirements on general licensees?
Characteristics and Qualifications of the Fund Custodian
Another consideration in establishing financial planning
requirements is how to determine the proper custodian for the fund that
is to be earmarked for disposition.
Question 7: What are the ideal characteristics and qualifications
for an entity that will act as the custodian for any funds earmarked
for long-term management of disused sealed sources? For instance, what
characteristics and qualifications should be taken into consideration
regarding the custodian's relationship to the licensee (e.g., the
ability of the custodian to access the funds, or the custodian's
independent financial viability)? In the event that there is a residual
amount remaining in the fund following payment of disposition cost,
what should be the fate of the residual funds?
Tracking
For licensees possessing Category 1 or 2 radioactive sealed
sources, regulators can access the National Source Tracking System
(NSTS) to determine the number and type of licensees that would be
potentially impacted by end-of-life financial assurance requirements.
For new sources, source manufacturers or suppliers could be contacted
to determine how they would be impacted by any new requirements.
However, it may be more difficult to implement requirements and ensure
accountability regarding sources that are not tracked in the NSTS (e.g.
Category 3 and lower).
Question 8: What are the key characteristics of a tracking system
for byproduct material (sealed sources) subject to financial planning
requirements? Which of these characteristics are not available as part
of the NSTS?
The topical areas and questions that the NRC staff has identified
above are consequential, but not exhaustive. Varied perspectives from a
broad range of stakeholders will be beneficial. Further, NRC staff
anticipates that stakeholders will identify and provide their
perspectives on additional issues they identify that are relevant to
financial planning for management of disused or unwanted radioactive
byproduct material.
Based on the results of the expanded byproduct material financial
scoping study, staff will compile a report with study results and
recommendations for next steps to be provided to the Commission in
spring 2016. Staff recommendations could include options such as
limited rulemaking, broad scope rulemaking, advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, development of guidance, issuance of a generic
communication, or no action.
IV. Topic-Specific Public Meeting
The NRC will convene a topic-specific public meeting in Rockville,
MD, in early fall 2015. The public meeting will include a webinar and
teleconference for the convenience of participants who find attendance
inconvenient or prohibitive. A meeting notice will be posted to the
NRC's public Web site at http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg no fewer than
10 days prior to the meeting providing the date, time, and venue of the
meeting, as well as remote participation instructions. A transcript of
the public meeting will be made publicly available in ADAMS, as well as
posted on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2015-0182. The Federal
Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the
docket folder (NRC-2015-0182); (2) click the ``Email Alert'' link; and
(3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like
to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).
The NRC staff will use the information gathered from the public
meeting to supplement information gathered in response to this FRN and
other sources to prepare a report on byproduct material financial
scoping study for the Commission, which will include the NRC staff's
recommendations for next steps.
Dated at Rockville, MD this 24th day of July 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
Deputy Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and
Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2015-18891 Filed 7-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P