Comment (065) of Kenneth Tavares on behalf of Town of ...1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From:...
Transcript of Comment (065) of Kenneth Tavares on behalf of Town of ...1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From:...
1
Rulemaking1CEm Resource
From: RulemakingComments ResourceSent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:39 AMTo: Rulemaking1CEm ResourceSubject: Comment on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for
DecommissioningAttachments: Tab C - 02-09-16 Tavares.pdf
DOCKETED BY USNRC—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
SECY-067 PR#: ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 FRN#: 80FR72358 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0070 SECY DOCKET DATE: 3/15/16 TITLE: Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors COMMENT#: 065
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH
February 9, 2016
Annette Vietti-Cook Mail Stop 0-16G4
11 Lincoln Street
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360
FAX: (508) 830-4140
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
Board of Selectmen Town Manager
(508) 747-1620 ext. 100
Human Resources (508) 747-1620 ext. 101
The Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station host community since 1972, is pleased to provide the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission feedback related · to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. NRC-2015-0070).
Please find the Town of Plymouth's feedback, in response to the series of questions posed in the docket, attached for your reference.
In addition to the specific feedback, the Town of Plymouth would like to share feedback that relates to two issues not addressed in the docket.
First, the Town of Plymouth respectfully requests additional rulemaking hearings take place in · a variety of locations across the U.S. Given Plymouth's limited financial resources, fully participating in a rulemaking process centered on the NRC's headquarters .has already proven challenging. It is likely that a number of communities across the nation are in a similar position. Plymouth encourages the NRC to hold additional rulemaking hearings in the host communities, or at the regional level where the closure is due to take place, or underway.
In addition, the Town of Plymouth respectfully requests that host communities actively and substantively participate in the decommissioning process on a continual basis. The Nuclear Energy Institute serves as a unified industry voice and has formed a Decommissioning Task Force to advise the NRG. Plymouth strongly recommends that the NRC support a similar framework for host communities. Plymouth believes it is also important that host communities provide advice and guidance to the NRC on
.... '-'
1
Printed on Recycled Paper
decommissioning issues,· related to economic, fiscal, employment, and environmental impacts.
The Town of Plymouth looks forward to working cooperatively with the NRC in the coming years as the decommissioning process for Entergy's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station evolves. If there are any questions related to the feedback, provided above and in the attached document, please do not hesitate to contact the Town Manager's Office at 508-747-1620, ext. 100.
Sincerely,
!(-&wr-~ Kenneth Tavares, Chair Plymouth Board of Selectmen
C: Senator Elizabeth Warren Senator Edward Markey Congressman William Keating Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker Attorney General Maura Healey Representative Viriato deMacedo Representative Mathew Muratore Representative Thomas Calter Representative Randy Hunt
2
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH
_ 11 LINCOLN ST. PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02360 r~-------------------- - ---------~------------·---:--!
[_~~J.\f\.Jf'-J_lf'.J§_~_l2§/_§_!:Q~_f\i'l~N~J
* 50% RECYCLED PAPER 30°/, POST-CONSUMER
.:snoc:JCToN
r:tFEB 2016
Annette Vietti-Cook Mail Stop 0-16G4 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
I f\i] 1-" ,.,_,,. ___ ,, ____ ,,, •'.)
2t1555$0Ci01 J 1t1111.1.1, 1I111111jI•111t11' •''I 1I1I1111,,, 1' I·,,,, .. t .JI I'' 1 • l'
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
1
A.
QU
ESTI
ON
S R
ELAT
ED T
O E
MER
GEN
CY
PREP
AR
EDN
ESS
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TS F
OR
DEC
OM
MIS
SIO
NIN
G
POW
ER R
EAC
TOR
LIC
ENSE
ES
ITEM
D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N
TOW
N O
F PL
YMO
UTH
’S F
EED
BA
CK
EP
-3
a. P
rese
ntly
, lic
ense
es a
t dec
omm
issi
onin
g si
tes
mus
t mai
ntai
n th
e fo
llow
ing
capa
bilit
ies
to in
itiat
e an
d im
plem
ent e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se a
ctio
ns:
Cla
ssify
and
dec
lare
an
emer
genc
y, a
sses
s re
leas
es o
f rad
ioac
tive
mat
eria
ls, n
otify
lice
nsee
pe
rson
nel a
nd o
ffsite
aut
horit
ies,
take
miti
gativ
e ac
tions
, and
requ
est o
ffsite
ass
ista
nce
if ne
eded
. W
hat o
ther
asp
ects
of o
nsite
EP
and
resp
onse
ca
pabi
litie
s m
ay b
e ap
prop
riate
for l
icen
sees
at
deco
mm
issi
onin
g si
tes
to m
aint
ain
once
the
requ
irem
ents
to m
aint
ain
form
al o
ffsite
EP
are
di
scon
tinue
d?
Exis
ting
resp
onse
act
ions
sho
uld
rem
ain
in p
lace
du
ring
deco
mm
issi
onin
g an
d un
til 1
80 d
ays
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
b. T
o w
hat e
xten
t wou
ld it
be
appr
opria
te fo
r lic
ense
es a
t dec
omm
issi
onin
g si
tes
to a
rrang
e fo
r of
fsite
ass
ista
nce
to s
uppl
emen
t ons
ite re
spon
se
capa
bilit
ies?
For
exa
mpl
e, li
cens
ees
at
deco
mm
issi
onin
g si
tes
wou
ld m
aint
ain
agre
emen
ts
with
offs
ite a
utho
ritie
s fo
r fire
, med
ical
, and
law
en
forc
emen
t sup
port.
Lice
nsee
s at
dec
omm
issi
onin
g si
tes
shou
ld m
aint
ain
agre
emen
ts w
ith o
ffsite
aut
horit
ies
for f
ire, m
edic
al,
and
law
enf
orce
men
t sup
port
, as
wel
l as
loca
l el
ecte
d of
ficia
ls s
uch
as m
ayor
s an
d bo
ards
of
sele
ctm
en.
Com
mis
sion
ers
shou
ld c
onsi
der t
he v
alue
in th
e co
oper
ativ
e ag
reem
ent a
nd g
rant
pro
cess
to th
e St
ate
and
host
com
mun
ity.
Thes
e ag
reem
ents
wou
ld
assi
st g
over
nmen
t and
offs
ite re
spon
se
orga
niza
tions
in c
arry
ing
out f
unct
ions
rela
ting
to
emer
genc
y pr
epar
edne
ss a
nd re
spon
se in
the
even
t of
any
acc
iden
ts o
r oth
er u
npla
nned
occ
urre
nces
as
soci
ated
with
dec
omm
issi
oned
reac
tors
and
with
th
e co
nstr
uctio
n an
d op
erat
ion
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
fa
cilit
ies.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
2
At a
min
imum
em
erge
ncy
prep
ared
ness
and
re
spon
se re
quire
men
ts f o
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g re
acto
rs a
nd s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
faci
litie
s sh
ould
in
corp
orat
e th
e fo
llow
ing
into
coo
pera
tive
agre
emen
ts a
nd g
rant
s su
ppor
ted
by th
e Li
cens
ee:
A
. D
escr
iptio
n of
em
erge
ncy
actio
ns, s
trat
egie
s,
and
trai
ning
take
n to
ass
ist t
he S
tate
& h
ost
com
mun
ity g
over
nmen
ts in
car
ryin
g ou
t fu
nctio
ns re
lativ
e to
loca
l em
erge
ncy
prep
ared
ness
and
ons
ite re
spon
se. (
e.g.
Pl
ans,
Pro
cedu
res,
Com
mun
icat
ion
Prot
ocol
s)
B.
Des
crip
tion
of e
quip
men
t (e.
g. N
FPA
appr
oved
en
sem
bles
, fire
fight
ing
resp
onse
, and
sec
urity
eq
uipm
ent),
env
ironm
enta
l mon
itorin
g eq
uipm
ent,
and
emer
genc
y m
edic
al a
nd p
ublic
he
alth
sup
port
requ
ired
(e.g
.; R
adia
tion
Expo
sure
/ Ac
ute
Rad
iatio
n Sy
ndro
me
(AR
S)
trea
tmen
t cap
abili
ties)
C
. A
nnua
l ass
essm
ent o
f the
saf
ety
stat
us a
nd
inte
grity
of t
he o
nsite
spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge
oper
atio
ns a
nd h
ost c
omm
unity
em
erge
ncy
prep
ared
ness
and
resp
onse
read
ines
s.
D.
Acc
ount
ing
of a
ll fu
nds
expe
nded
thro
ugh
coop
erat
ive
agre
emen
t and
gra
nts
for
activ
ities
car
ried
out t
o en
sure
acc
ount
abili
ty
and
read
ines
s re
port
ing.
E.
Rec
ogni
tion
that
add
ition
al a
ssis
tanc
e m
ay b
e pr
ovid
ed fr
om th
e Li
cens
ee fo
r cap
abili
ties
to
resp
ond
to e
mer
genc
ies
invo
lvin
g on
site
op
erat
ions
.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
3
180
Day
s fo
llow
ing
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
st
orag
e, a
ll co
oper
ativ
e ag
reem
ents
and
gra
nts
with
re
spec
t to
the
emer
genc
y pr
epar
edne
ss a
nd
resp
onse
will
be
term
inat
ed.”
c. W
hat c
orre
spon
ding
cha
nges
to §
50.
54(s
)(2)(
ii)
and
50.5
4(s)
(3) (
abou
t U.S
. Fed
eral
Em
erge
ncy
Man
agem
ent A
genc
y (F
EM
A)-
iden
tifie
d of
fsite
EP
de
ficie
ncie
s an
d FE
MA
offs
ite E
P fi
ndin
gs,
resp
ectiv
ely)
may
be
appr
opria
te w
hen
offs
ite
radi
olog
ical
em
erge
ncy
plan
s w
ould
no
long
er b
e re
quire
d?
Offs
ite re
spon
se a
ctio
ns s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt
fuel
sto
rage
.
EP-4
a.
Sho
uld
§ 50
.54(
q) b
e m
odifi
ed to
reco
gniz
e th
at
nucl
ear p
ower
reac
tor l
icen
sees
, onc
e th
ey c
ertif
y un
der §
50.
82, “
Term
inat
ion
of L
icen
se,”
to h
ave
perm
anen
tly c
ease
d op
erat
ion
and
perm
anen
tly
rem
oved
fuel
from
the
reac
tor v
esse
l, w
ould
no
long
er b
e re
quire
d to
mee
t all
stan
dard
s in
§ 5
0.47
an
d al
l req
uire
men
ts in
app
endi
x E
? If
so, d
escr
ibe
how
.
Req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
.
b. S
houl
d nu
clea
r pow
er re
acto
r lic
ense
es, o
nce
they
cer
tify
unde
r § 5
0.82
to h
ave
perm
anen
tly
ceas
ed o
pera
tion
and
perm
anen
tly re
mov
ed fu
el
from
the
reac
tor v
esse
l, be
allo
wed
to m
ake
emer
genc
y pl
an c
hang
es b
ased
on
§ 50
.59,
“C
hang
es, T
ests
, and
Exp
erim
ents
,” im
pact
ing
EP
re
late
d eq
uipm
ent d
irect
ly a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith p
ower
op
erat
ions
? If
so, d
escr
ibe
how
this
mig
ht b
e
Req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
4
addr
esse
d un
der §
50.
54(q
).
EP
-5
Sho
uld
§ 50
.54(
t) be
cla
rifie
d to
dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
EP
pro
gram
revi
ew re
quire
men
ts fo
r ope
ratin
g ve
rsus
per
man
ently
shu
t dow
n an
d de
fuel
ed s
ites?
If
so, d
escr
ibe
how
.
Req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
.
EP-6
At w
hat p
oint
(s) i
n th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
shou
ld E
RD
S a
ctiv
atio
n, E
RD
S e
quip
men
t, an
d th
e in
stru
men
tatio
n fo
r obt
aini
ng E
RD
S d
ata,
no
long
er
be n
eces
sary
?
Req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
unt
il 18
0 da
ys
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
EP-7
Wha
t cha
nges
to §
50.
72(a
)(1)(i
) sho
uld
be
cons
ider
ed fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g si
tes?
Not
ifica
tion
Req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce
until
180
day
s fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fu
el s
tora
ge.
EP
-8
Wha
t cha
nges
to §
50.
72(b
)(3)(x
iii) s
houl
d be
co
nsid
ered
for d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
site
s?
Rep
ortin
g re
quire
men
ts s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt
fuel
sto
rage
.
A
. Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATED
TO
TH
E PH
YSIC
AL
SEC
UR
ITY
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TS F
OR
DEC
OM
MIS
SIO
NIN
G P
OW
ER
REA
CTO
R L
ICEN
SEES
IT
EM
DES
CR
IPTI
ON
TO
WN
OF
PLYM
OU
TH’S
FEE
DB
AC
K
PSR
-1
(In
tent
iona
lly b
lank
) N
o se
curit
y re
quire
men
ts s
houl
d be
con
side
red
for
chan
ge, a
nd a
ll se
curit
y re
quire
men
ts th
at e
xist
for
an o
pera
ting
plan
t sho
uld
rem
ain
in p
lace
unt
il 18
0 da
ys fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
5
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt
fuel
sto
rage
.
PSR
-2
a.
Are
ther
e an
y su
gges
ted
chan
ges
to th
e ph
ysic
al
secu
rity
requ
irem
ents
in 1
0 C
FR p
art 7
3 or
its
appe
ndic
es th
at w
ould
be
gene
rical
ly a
pplic
able
to
a de
com
mis
sion
ing
pow
er re
acto
r whi
le s
pent
fuel
is
sto
red
in th
e S
FP (e.g.,
are
ther
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
whe
re th
e m
inim
um n
umbe
r of a
rmed
resp
onde
rs
coul
d be
redu
ced
at a
dec
omm
issi
onin
g fa
cilit
y)?
If so
, des
crib
e th
em.
Secu
rity
requ
irem
ents
that
exi
st fo
r an
oper
atin
g pl
ant s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
b. W
hich
phy
sica
l sec
urity
requ
irem
ents
in 1
0 C
FR
part
73 s
houl
d be
gen
eric
ally
app
licab
le to
spe
nt
fuel
sto
red
in a
dry
cas
k in
depe
nden
t spe
nt fu
el
stor
age
inst
alla
tion?
Secu
rity
requ
irem
ents
that
exi
st fo
r an
oper
atin
g pl
ant s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
c. S
houl
d th
e D
BT
for r
adio
logi
cal s
abot
age
cont
inue
to a
pply
to d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
reac
tors
? If
it sh
ould
cea
se to
app
ly in
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s, w
hen
shou
ld it
end
?
The
DB
T re
quire
men
ts th
at e
xist
for a
n op
erat
ing
plan
t for
radi
olog
ical
sab
otag
e sh
ould
rem
ain
in
plac
e un
til 1
80 d
ays
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt
fuel
sto
rage
.
PSR
-3
(In
tent
iona
lly b
lank
) Th
e sa
me
secu
rity
requ
irem
ents
that
exi
st fo
r an
oper
atin
g pl
ant s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
.
PSR
-6
a.
Sec
tion
73.5
4 cl
early
sta
tes
that
the
requ
irem
ents
fo
r pro
tect
ion
of d
igita
l com
pute
r and
co
mm
unic
atio
ns s
yste
ms
and
netw
orks
app
ly to
The
lang
uage
in th
e “p
ream
ble”
to 1
0 C
FR 7
3.54
sh
ould
be
mod
ified
to in
clud
e lic
ense
es in
a p
erio
d of
“co
ntin
ued
effe
ctiv
enes
s,”
as d
escr
ibed
in 1
0 C
FR
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
6
pow
er re
acto
rs li
cens
ed u
nder
10
CFR
par
t 50
that
w
ere
licen
sed
to o
pera
te a
s of
Nov
embe
r 23,
200
9.
How
ever
, § 7
3.54
doe
s no
t exp
licitl
y m
entio
n th
e ap
plic
abilit
y of
thes
e re
quire
men
ts to
pow
er
reac
tors
that
are
no
long
er a
utho
rized
to o
pera
te
and
are
trans
ition
ing
to d
ecom
mis
sion
ing.
Are
any
ch
ange
s ne
cess
ary
to §
73.
54 to
exp
licitl
y st
ate
that
de
com
mis
sion
ing
pow
er re
acto
rs a
re w
ithin
the
scop
e of
§ 7
3.54
? If
so, d
escr
ibe
them
.
50.5
1(b)
, inc
ludi
ng IS
FSI-o
nly
site
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
the
sam
e di
gita
l sec
urity
requ
irem
ents
that
exi
st fo
r an
oper
atin
g pl
ant s
houl
d re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
.
b. S
houl
d th
ere
be re
duce
d cy
ber s
ecur
ity
requ
irem
ents
in §
73.
54 fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g po
wer
re
acto
rs b
ased
on
the
redu
ced
risk
prof
ile d
urin
g de
com
mis
sion
ing?
If s
o, w
hat w
ould
be
the
reco
mm
ende
d ch
ange
s?
The
sam
e cy
ber s
ecur
ity re
quire
men
ts th
at e
xist
for
an o
pera
ting
plan
t sho
uld
rem
ain
in p
lace
unt
il al
l sp
ent f
uel i
s re
mov
ed fr
om th
e si
te, a
nd th
ere
shou
ld
be n
o re
duct
ion
in c
yber
sec
urity
requ
irem
ents
for
deco
mm
issi
onin
g po
wer
reac
tors
.
C. Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATE
D T
O F
ITN
ESS
FOR
DU
TY (F
FD) R
EQU
IREM
ENTS
FO
R D
ECO
MM
ISSI
ON
ING
PO
WER
R
EAC
TOR
LIC
ENSE
ES
ITEM
D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N
TOW
N O
F PL
YMO
UTH
’S F
EED
BA
CK
FF
D-2
a.
Sho
uld
any
of th
e fa
tigue
man
agem
ent
requ
irem
ents
of 1
0 C
FR p
art 2
6, s
ubpa
rt I,
appl
y to
a
perm
anen
tly s
hut d
own
and
defu
eled
reac
tor?
If
so, w
hich
one
s?
All
exis
ting
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts
shou
ld re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
b. B
ased
on
the
low
er ri
sk o
f an
offs
ite ra
diol
ogic
al
rele
ase
from
a d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
reac
tor,
com
pare
d to
an
oper
atin
g re
acto
r, sh
ould
onl
y sp
ecifi
c cl
asse
s of
wor
kers
, as
iden
tifie
d in
§ 2
6.4(
a) th
roug
h (c
), be
su
bjec
t to
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts
All
exis
ting
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts
shou
ld re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
7
(e.g.,
secu
rity
offic
ers
or c
ertif
ied
fuel
han
dler
s)?
Ple
ase
prov
ide
wha
t cla
sses
of w
orke
rs s
houl
d be
su
bjec
t to
the
requ
irem
ents
and
a ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r th
eir i
nclu
sion
. c.
Sho
uld
the
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts o
f 10
CFR
par
t 26,
sub
part
I, co
ntin
ue to
app
ly to
the
spec
ific
clas
ses
of w
orke
rs id
entif
ied
in re
spon
se to
qu
estio
n b
abov
e, fo
r a s
peci
fied
perio
d of
tim
e (e.g.,u
ntil
a sp
ecifi
ed d
ecay
hea
t lev
el is
reac
hed
with
in th
e S
FP, o
r unt
il al
l fue
l is
in d
ry s
tora
ge)?
P
leas
e pr
ovid
e w
hat p
erio
d of
tim
e w
orke
rs w
ould
be
sub
ject
to th
e re
quire
men
ts a
nd th
e ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r the
tim
ing.
All
exis
ting
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts
shou
ld re
mai
n in
pla
ce d
urin
g de
com
mis
sion
ing
until
180
day
s fo
llow
ing
the
term
inat
ion
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fu
el s
tora
ge.
d. S
houl
d an
alte
rnat
e ap
proa
ch to
fatig
ue
man
agem
ent b
e de
velo
ped
com
men
sura
te w
ith th
e pl
ant's
low
er ri
sk p
rofil
e? P
leas
e pr
ovid
e a
disc
ussi
on o
f the
alte
rnat
e ap
proa
ch a
nd h
ow th
e m
easu
res
wou
ld a
dequ
atel
y m
anag
e fa
tigue
for
wor
kers
.
All
exis
ting
fatig
ue m
anag
emen
t req
uire
men
ts
shou
ld re
mai
n in
pla
ce u
ntil
180
days
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
E. Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATE
D T
O T
HE
CU
RR
ENT
REG
ULA
TOR
Y A
PPR
OA
CH
FO
R D
ECO
MM
ISSI
ON
ING
PO
WER
R
EAC
TOR
LIC
ENSE
ES
ITEM
D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N
TOW
N O
F PL
YMO
UTH
’S F
EED
BA
CK
R
EG-1
a.
Sho
uld
the
curre
nt o
ptio
ns fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g—D
EC
ON
, SA
FSTO
R, a
nd E
NTO
MB
—be
exp
licitl
y ad
dres
sed
and
defin
ed in
the
regu
latio
ns in
stea
d of
so
lely
in g
uida
nce
docu
men
ts, a
nd h
ow s
o?
The
curr
ent o
ptio
ns fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g—D
ECO
N,
SAFS
TOR
, and
EN
TOM
B—
sho
uld
be e
xplic
itly
addr
esse
d an
d de
fined
in th
e re
gula
tions
and
the
NR
C s
houl
d ex
plic
itly
disc
uss
the
risks
and
ben
efits
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
8
as
soci
ated
with
eac
h.
b. S
houl
d ot
her o
ptio
ns fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g be
ex
plor
ed?
If so
, wha
t oth
er te
chni
cal o
r pr
ogra
mm
atic
opt
ions
are
reas
onab
le a
nd w
hat t
ype
of s
uppo
rting
doc
umen
ts w
ould
be
mos
t effe
ctiv
e fo
r pr
ovid
ing
guid
ance
on
thes
e ne
w o
ptio
ns o
r re
quire
men
ts?
Bes
t pra
ctic
es fo
r oth
er fo
rms
of d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
shou
ld b
e ex
plor
ed, p
rese
nted
and
dis
cuss
ed. F
or
exam
ple,
the
NR
C s
houl
d co
nsid
er a
new
de
com
mis
sion
ing
optio
n th
at e
nabl
es n
on-
radi
olog
ical
con
tam
inat
ion
and
haza
rdou
s w
aste
s to
be
cle
aned
up
imm
edia
tely
afte
r shu
tdow
n, w
hile
re
acto
rs u
tiliz
ing
SAFS
TOR
pre
pare
for d
orm
ancy
.
c. T
he N
RC
regu
latio
ns s
tate
that
dec
omm
issi
onin
g m
ust b
e co
mpl
eted
with
in 6
0 ye
ars
of p
erm
anen
t ce
ssat
ion
of o
pera
tions
. A d
urat
ion
of 6
0 ye
ars
was
ch
osen
bec
ause
it ro
ughl
y co
rresp
onds
to 1
0 ha
lf-liv
es fo
r cob
alt-6
0, o
ne o
f the
pre
dom
inan
t iso
tope
s re
mai
ning
in th
e fa
cilit
y. B
y 60
yea
rs, t
he in
itial
sh
ort-l
ived
isot
opes
, inc
ludi
ng c
obal
t-60,
will
have
de
caye
d to
bac
kgro
und
leve
ls. I
n ad
ditio
n, th
e 60
-ye
ar p
erio
d ap
pear
s to
be
reas
onab
le fr
om th
e st
andp
oint
of e
xpec
ting
inst
itutio
nal c
ontro
ls to
be
mai
ntai
ned.
Com
plet
ion
of d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
beyo
nd
60 y
ears
will
be a
ppro
ved
by th
e N
RC
onl
y w
hen
nece
ssar
y to
pro
tect
pub
lic h
ealth
and
saf
ety.
S
houl
d th
e re
quire
men
ts b
e ch
ange
d so
that
the
timef
ram
e fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g is
som
ethi
ng o
ther
th
an th
e cu
rrent
60-
year
lim
it? W
ould
this
cha
nge
be
depe
nden
t on
the
met
hod
of d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
chos
en, s
ite s
peci
fic c
hara
cter
istic
s, o
r som
e ot
her
com
bina
tion
of fa
ctor
s? If
so,
ple
ase
desc
ribe.
A ti
mef
ram
e ba
sed
on th
e de
cay
of C
obal
t-60
inad
vert
ently
pla
ces
an u
nrea
sona
ble
burd
en o
n ho
st c
omm
uniti
es, a
nd a
mor
e ap
prop
riate
tim
efra
me
wou
ld b
e re
late
d di
rect
ly to
the
tech
nolo
gica
l and
fina
ncia
l cap
aciti
es o
f pla
nt
owne
rs. A
ckno
wle
dgem
ent a
nd d
iscu
ssio
n of
new
te
chno
logi
es s
houl
d be
revi
ewed
bef
ore
the
60-y
ear
limit
is a
ppro
ved.
REG
-2
a.
Is th
e co
nten
t and
leve
l of d
etai
l cur
rent
ly re
quire
d fo
r the
lice
nsee
's P
SD
AR
, ade
quat
e? If
not
, wha
t Th
e PS
DA
R s
houl
d al
so q
uant
ify s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic
impa
cts
pert
aini
ng to
the
shut
dow
n of
the
plan
t if
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
9
shou
ld b
e ad
ded
or re
mov
ed to
enh
ance
the
docu
men
t?
the
reac
tor d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
wou
ld le
ad to
the
cess
atio
n of
all
pow
er g
ener
atio
n on
site
, and
in
clud
e a
requ
irem
ent t
hat l
icen
sees
com
pens
ate
host
com
mun
ities
for s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
. The
fact
th
at th
e D
OE
has
been
foun
d fin
anci
ally
liab
le to
the
licen
sees
for s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
cos
ts d
emon
stra
tes
that
ther
e is
a v
alue
to s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
, and
hos
t co
mm
uniti
es c
ould
be
com
pens
ated
with
in th
at
fram
ewor
k. F
urth
erm
ore,
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g co
st
estim
ates
incl
uded
in th
e PS
DA
R s
houl
d in
clud
e a
“sta
tus
quo”
sce
nario
for t
he D
OE’
s ac
cept
ance
of
spen
t fue
l, to
refle
ct th
e fa
ct th
at th
e D
OE
has
no
tem
pora
ry o
r per
man
ent r
epos
itory
(som
e co
st
estim
ates
now
ass
ume
the
rem
oval
of s
pent
fuel
fr
om th
e si
te s
tart
ing
in 2
020,
whi
ch is
ove
rly
optim
istic
).
b. S
houl
d th
e re
gula
tions
be
amen
ded
to re
quire
N
RC
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val o
f the
PS
DA
R b
efor
e al
low
ing
any
“maj
or d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
activ
ity,”
as
that
term
is d
efin
ed in
§ 5
0.2,
to c
omm
ence
? W
hat
valu
e w
ould
this
add
to th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess?
Yes.
Con
tinue
d N
RC
ove
rsig
ht is
cru
cial
to th
e sa
fety
of h
ost c
omm
uniti
es.
REG
-3
a.
Sho
uld
the
curre
nt ro
le o
f the
Sta
tes,
mem
bers
of
the
publ
ic, o
r oth
er s
take
hold
ers
in th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
be e
xpan
ded
or
enha
nced
, and
how
so?
Lice
nsee
s sh
ould
be
requ
ired
to c
reat
e a
com
mun
ity
advi
sory
boa
rd a
nd s
olic
it pu
blic
adv
ice.
Hos
t co
mm
uniti
es m
ust b
e gi
ven
a vo
ice
in th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess
and
in s
ettin
g th
e re
quire
men
ts fo
r the
saf
ety
and
secu
rity
of s
pent
fu
els
stor
age.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
10
b. S
houl
d th
e cu
rrent
role
of t
he S
tate
s, m
embe
rs o
f th
e pu
blic
, or o
ther
sta
keho
lder
s in
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s fo
r non
-radi
olog
ical
are
as
be e
xpan
ded
or e
nhan
ced,
and
how
so?
Cur
rent
ly,
for a
ll no
n-ra
diol
ogic
al e
fflue
nts
crea
ted
durin
g th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
proc
ess,
lice
nsee
s ar
e re
quire
d to
co
mpl
y w
ith E
PA
or S
tate
regu
latio
ns re
late
d to
liq
uid
efflu
ent d
isch
arge
s to
bod
ies
of w
ater
.
In a
dditi
on to
com
plyi
ng w
ith E
PA o
r Sta
te
regu
latio
ns re
late
d to
liqu
id e
fflue
nt d
isch
arge
s to
bo
dies
of w
ater
, all
pert
inen
t loc
al re
gula
tions
sh
ould
be
incl
uded
.
c. F
or m
ost d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
site
s, th
e S
tate
and
lo
cal g
over
nmen
ts a
re in
volv
ed in
an
advi
sory
ca
paci
ty, o
ften
as p
art o
f a C
omm
unity
Eng
agem
ent
Pan
el o
r oth
er o
rgan
izat
ion
aim
ed a
t fos
terin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n an
d in
form
atio
n ex
chan
ge b
etw
een
the
licen
see
and
the
publ
ic. S
houl
d th
e N
RC
's
regu
latio
ns m
anda
te th
e fo
rmat
ion
of th
ese
advi
sory
pa
nels
?
Com
mun
ity E
ngag
emen
t mus
t be
a re
quire
men
t and
sh
ould
incl
ude
all i
ssue
s re
late
d to
the
envi
ronm
ent,
safe
ty, s
pent
fuel
sto
rage
, hos
t com
mun
ity
com
pens
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
soc
io-e
cono
mic
impa
cts
to
the
host
com
mun
ity. N
RC
regu
latio
ns s
houl
d en
sure
fu
ndin
g su
ppor
t fro
m li
cens
ees
and
stat
es fo
r the
C
omm
unity
Eng
agem
ent P
anel
s to
mee
t nec
essa
ry
expe
nditu
res
for s
taff
time,
spa
ce, f
acili
tatio
n or
re
sear
ch n
eeds
, et c
eter
a.
G
. QU
ESTI
ON
S R
ELA
TED
TO
DEC
OM
MIS
SIO
NIN
G T
RU
ST F
UN
D
ITEM
D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N
TOW
N O
F PL
YMO
UTH
’S F
EED
BA
CK
D
TF-1
Sho
uld
the
regu
latio
ns in
§§
50.7
5 an
d 50
.82
be
revi
sed
to c
larif
y th
e co
llect
ion,
repo
rting
, and
ac
coun
ting
of c
omm
ingl
ed fu
nds
in th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
trust
fund
, tha
t is
in e
xces
s of
the
amou
nt re
quire
d fo
r rad
iolo
gica
l dec
omm
issi
onin
g an
d th
at h
as b
een
desi
gnat
ed fo
r oth
er p
urpo
ses,
in
orde
r to
prec
lude
the
need
to o
btai
n ex
empt
ions
for
acce
ss to
the
exce
ss m
onie
s?
The
regu
latio
ns s
houl
d be
revi
sed
to c
larif
y th
e co
llect
ion,
repo
rtin
g, a
nd a
ccou
ntin
g of
com
min
gled
fu
nds
in th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
trus
t fun
d, th
at is
in
exce
ss o
f the
am
ount
requ
ired
for r
adio
logi
cal
deco
mm
issi
onin
g an
d sh
ould
incl
ude
the
cost
of
spen
t fue
l sto
rage
and
rem
oval
.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
11
DTF
-2
a. W
hat c
hang
es s
houl
d be
con
side
red
for §
§ 50
.2
and
50.8
2(a)
(8) t
o cl
arify
wha
t con
stitu
tes
a le
gitim
ate
deco
mm
issi
onin
g ac
tivity
?
The
guid
ance
sho
uld
codi
fy “
(1) t
he m
aint
enan
ce
and
stor
age
of s
pent
fuel
, (2)
the
desi
gn a
nd/o
r co
nstr
uctio
n of
a s
pent
fuel
dry
sto
rage
faci
lity,
(3)
activ
ities
that
are
not
dire
ctly
rela
ted
to s
uppo
rtin
g lo
ng-te
rm s
tora
ge o
f the
faci
lity,
or (
4) a
ny o
ther
ac
tiviti
es n
ot d
irect
ly re
late
d to
radi
olog
ical
de
cont
amin
atio
n of
the
site
.” W
orkf
orce
trai
ning
and
ho
st c
omm
unity
com
pens
atio
n sh
ould
als
o be
add
ed
to th
is li
st.
b. R
egul
atio
ns in
§ 5
0.82
(8)(i
i) st
ates
that
3 p
erce
nt
of th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
fund
s m
ay b
e us
ed d
urin
g th
e in
itial
sta
ges
of d
ecom
mis
sion
ing
for
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pl
anni
ng a
ctiv
ities
. Wha
t sho
uld
be in
clud
ed o
r spe
cific
ally
exc
lude
d in
the
defin
ition
of
“dec
omm
issi
onin
g pl
anni
ng a
ctiv
ities
?”
The
defin
ition
of “
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pl
anni
ng
activ
ities
” sh
ould
incl
ude
the
reso
lutio
n of
any
and
al
l neg
otia
tions
bet
wee
n th
e lic
ense
e an
d lo
cal a
nd
stat
e en
titie
s th
at p
erta
in to
dec
omm
issi
onin
g -in
duce
d ch
ange
s to
pro
pert
y va
luat
ion,
tax
reve
nues
, em
erge
ncy
plan
ning
, wor
kfor
ce a
djus
tmen
ts,
regi
onal
eco
nom
ic im
pact
s, a
nd n
on-r
adio
logi
cal s
ite
clea
nup.
“D
ecom
mis
sion
ing
plan
ning
act
iviti
es”
shou
ld a
lso
incl
ude
rela
ted
plan
ning
wor
k ca
rrie
d ou
t by
host
com
mun
ities
, to
fairl
y co
mpe
nsat
e of
ficia
ls in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess.
H. Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATE
D T
O O
FFSI
TE L
IAB
ILIT
Y PR
OTE
CTI
ON
INSU
RA
NC
E R
EQU
IREM
ENTS
FO
R
DEC
OM
MIS
SIO
NIN
G P
OW
ER R
EAC
TOR
LIC
ENSE
ES
ITEM
D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N
TOW
N O
F PL
YMO
UTH
’S F
EED
BA
CK
LP
I-1
a. S
houl
d th
e N
RC
cod
ify th
e cu
rrent
con
serv
ativ
e ex
empt
ion
crite
ria (i.e.,1
0 ho
urs
to ta
ke m
itiga
tive
actio
ns) t
hat h
ave
been
use
d in
gra
ntin
g de
com
mis
sion
ing
reac
tor l
icen
sees
exe
mpt
ions
to §
14
0.11
(a)(4
)?
Ten
hour
s sh
ould
be
codi
fied
as th
e m
axim
um
amou
nt o
f tim
e al
low
ed.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
12
c. T
he u
se o
f $10
0 m
illio
n fo
r prim
ary
liabi
lity
insu
ranc
e le
vel i
s ba
sed
on C
omm
issi
on p
olic
y an
d pr
eced
ent f
rom
the
early
199
0s. T
he a
mou
nt
esta
blis
hed
was
a q
ualit
ativ
e va
lue
to b
ound
the
clai
ms
from
the
Thre
e M
ile Is
land
acc
iden
t. Sh
ould
th
is n
umbe
r be
adju
sted
?
The
num
ber s
houl
d no
t be
chan
ged.
d.
Wha
t oth
er fa
ctor
s sh
ould
be
cons
ider
ed in
es
tabl
ishi
ng a
n ap
prop
riate
prim
ary
insu
ranc
e lia
bilit
y le
vel (
base
d on
the
pote
ntia
l for
dam
age
clai
ms)
for a
dec
omm
issi
onin
g pl
ant o
nce
the
risk
of
any
kind
of o
ffsite
radi
olog
ical
rele
ase
is h
ighl
y un
likel
y?
Con
side
ratio
n sh
ould
be
give
n to
insu
ring
the
safe
tr
ansp
ort o
f spe
nt fu
el o
ff si
te.
I. Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATE
D T
O O
NSI
TE D
AMA
GE
PRO
TEC
TIO
N IN
SUR
AN
CE
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TS F
OR
D
ECO
MM
ISSI
ON
ING
PO
WER
REA
CTO
R L
ICEN
SEES
IT
EM
DES
CR
IPTI
ON
TO
WN
OF
PLYM
OU
TH’S
FEE
DB
AC
K
OD
I-1
a. S
houl
d th
e N
RC
cod
ify th
e cu
rrent
exe
mpt
ion
crite
ria th
at h
ave
been
use
d in
gra
ntin
g de
com
mis
sion
ing
reac
tor l
icen
sees
exe
mpt
ions
fro
m §
50.
54(w
)(1)
? If
so, d
escr
ibe
why
.
The
requ
ired
leve
l of o
nsite
pro
pert
y da
mag
e in
sura
nce
shou
ld n
ot b
e un
til 1
80 d
ays
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
b. T
he u
se o
f $50
milli
on in
sura
nce
leve
l for
bo
undi
ng o
nsite
radi
olog
ical
dam
ages
is b
ased
on
a po
stul
ated
liqu
id ra
dioa
ctiv
e w
aste
sto
rage
tank
ru
ptur
e us
ing
anal
yses
from
the
early
199
0s.
Sho
uld
this
num
ber b
e ad
just
ed?
If so
, des
crib
e
The
requ
ired
leve
l of o
nsite
pro
pert
y da
mag
e in
sura
nce
shou
ld n
ot b
e re
duce
unt
il 18
0 da
ys
follo
win
g th
e te
rmin
atio
n of
the
deco
mm
issi
onin
g pr
oces
s an
d th
e re
mov
al o
f spe
nt fu
el s
tora
ge.
Tow
n of
Ply
mou
th, M
assa
chus
etts
Fee
dbac
k U
.S. N
ucle
ar R
egul
ator
y C
omm
issi
on’s
Adv
ance
d N
otic
e of
Pro
pose
d R
ulem
akin
g
(Doc
ket N
o. N
RC
-201
5-00
70)
Dat
ed: F
ebru
ary
10, 2
016
13
J. G
ENER
AL Q
UES
TIO
NS
REL
ATE
D T
O D
ECO
MM
ISSI
ON
ING
PO
WER
REA
CTO
R R
EGU
LATI
ON
S IT
EM
DES
CR
IPTI
ON
TO
WN
OF
PLYM
OU
TH’S
FEE
DB
AC
K
GEN
-1
(Inte
ntio
nally
bla
nk)
The
NR
C s
houl
d de
velo
p SA
FSTO
R-s
peci
fic
trai
ning
pro
gram
s fo
r em
ploy
ees
mai
ntai
ning
and
m
onito
ring
long
-live
d pa
ssiv
e st
ruct
ures
and
co
mpo
nent
s. T
he N
RC
sho
uld
also
ado
pt
regu
latio
ns to
cla
rify
site
man
agem
ent
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
in th
e ev
ent t
hat a
lice
nsee
goe
s ou
t of b
usin
ess
or n
o lo
nger
exi
sts.
GEN
-2
(Inte
ntio
nally
bla
nk)
Yes.
GEN
-5
d. P
leas
e pr
ovid
e an
y su
gges
ted
chan
ges
that
w
ould
furth
er e
nhan
ce b
enef
its o
r red
uce
risks
that
m
ay n
ot h
ave
been
add
ress
ed in
this
AN
PR
.
Rea
ctor
dec
omm
issi
onin
g pl
aces
hos
t co
mm
uniti
es w
ith s
ingl
e -re
acto
r pla
nts
at a
n el
evat
ed ri
sk o
f pro
long
ed e
cono
mic
har
dshi
p.
Ther
efor
e, th
e N
RC
sho
uld
cons
ider
revi
sing
se
ctio
n 4.
3.12
of t
he “
Gen
eric
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Sta
tem
ent o
n D
ecom
mis
sion
ing
of N
ucle
ar
Faci
litie
s,”
whi
ch a
ddre
ssed
soc
ioec
onom
ic
impa
cts
asso
ciat
ed w
ith re
acto
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g an
d de
term
ined
that
suc
h im
pact
s w
ere
“nei
ther
de
tect
able
nor
des
tabi
lizin
g.”
Furt
herm
ore,
the
NR
C s
houl
d co
nsid
er re
visi
ng it
s de
com
mis
sion
ing
cost
est
imat
es to
mor
e ac
cura
tely
refle
ct th
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
cost
es
timat
es fi
led
in re
cent
PSD
AR
s.