POLICY ISSUE

NOTATION VOTE

May 16, 2002 SECY-02-0085

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: RECENT ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING

ASSURANCE THAT HAVE ARISEN AS PART OF LICENSE TRANSFER

APPLICATIONS AND OTHER LICENSING REQUESTS

PURPOSE:

To discuss the policy issues and provide the Commission with options with respect to the

potential withdrawal or non-transfer of decommissioning trust funds in excess of the generic

formula amounts in 10 CFR 50.75(c) as part of nuclear power plant license transfers and other

licensing actions.

BACKGROUND:

In a staff requirements memorandum dated August 14, 1996, the Commission directed the staff

to keep it informed of significant developments related to industry restructuring. This paper

discusses the subject issues in compliance with that directive.

In two recent nuclear plant license transfer applications involving plant sales, the sellers

broached the possibility of retaining decommissioning trust funds in excess of those required

under the generic decommissioning cost formulas in 10 CFR 50.75(c) in order to demonstrate

assurance of funds for decommissioning. In one license transfer, the sellers ultimately decided

not to retain excess funds because they believed that the policy issue raised might impact the

transfer’s schedule.

Contact: 

Robert Wood 

NRR/DRIP/RPRP

301-415-1255
The Commissioners -2-

In the other license transfer, although the sales agreement allowed the seller to retain excess

funds, the decommissioning trust did not contain funds in excess of the formula amounts. 

Thus, all funds were to be transferred at the consummation of the transfer, rendering the issue

moot in these instances.

In an action not involving a license transfer, a licensee requested permission to transfer

decommissioning funds in excess of the amount determined by the generic formulas in 10 CFR

50.75(c) to a wholly owned subsidiary that would not be a licensee. The purpose of this

transfer was to avoid payment of State taxes on the earnings on the decommissioning funds. 

Because the funds were in excess of the generic formula amounts and because they would still

be used solely for decommissioning, the staff approved the licensee’s request with conditions to

which the licensee has agreed. In a second action, the licensees of a multi-unit site sought an

exemption so that they could transfer decommissioning funds in excess of the amounts

determined under 10 CFR 50.75 from the decommissioning trust of one unit to the

decommissioning trust of another unit, which is slightly underfunded with respect to the terms of

the joint owners’ agreement, but not with respect to the generic formulas in § 50.75(c).

Because the funds were merely being transferred to another decommissioning trust fund and

would still be used to decommission one of the units, the staff approved the request. In both of

these cases, the approval was documented in a safety evaluation and a letter indicating

approval. Another licensee recently requested NRC approval of the withdrawal of

decommissioning trust funds that, according to the licensee, had been mistakenly deposited by

the licensee for disposal of steam generators that have been replaced at an operating plant.

The licensee subsequently withdrew this request.

The staff believes that similar proposals are likely to arise in future license transfers and other

licensing actions. A current rulemaking on decommissioning trust provisions is expected to

address some, but not all of the funding assurance concerns raised by these proposals. That 1

rule, if adopted, would require advance notification to the NRC of withdrawals from

decommissioning trusts; however, it does not address whether licensees may withdraw funds in

excess of the generic formula amounts. The staff therefore requests near-term Commission

guidance on the issue of withdrawal of decommissioning funds in excess of the amounts

required by the formulas in § 50.75(c) for licensing actions that may be requested before the

effective date of the final rule or that may not be covered by the provisions of the final rule.

This paper also addresses other decommissioning funding assurance issues that have been

raised by licensees and license applicants. These issues have generally emerged as a result of

electric generation deregulation and were not fully anticipated by the staff and have not been

explicitly addressed in earlier rulemaking and other regulatory initiatives.

On April 20, 2001, the Commission approved issuance of a proposed rule that would, among other things, require 1

advance notice to the NRC of any withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds other than for routine administrative expenses and

taxes. The NRC would have 30 days after receipt of a notice to object to a proposed withdrawal. (See “Staff Requirements -

SECY-01-0049 - Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Trust Provisions.” The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register

on May 30, 2001.) The staff believes that, in many instances, this rule, if adopted as proposed, could provide a means for ensuring

that funds remain in the decommissioning trusts, once deposited. However, the rule is not effective until one year after its

publication, so the NRC would lack an explicit process for disapproving withdrawals of decommissioning funds in excess of the

formula amounts until then. Also, the rule would not apply in those cases in which the transferor, which would no longer be a NRC

licensee after the transfer, withheld decommissioning funds from the transfer and then withdrew the funds. However, if the

Commission agrees, the staff could act in those cases through the license transfer approval process to deny the transfer unless all

decommissioning funds were transferred to the buyer.
The Commissioners -3-

DISCUSSION:

The NRC’s decommissioning funding assurance regulations in 10 CFR 50.75 require licensees

to demonstrate that they will have, by the time of permanent shutdown, at least the amount of

funds for decommissioning specified in the generic formulas in § 50.75(c), either through a

prepaid account or, if the licensee’s rates are regulated, through an external sinking fund that

accumulates over the projected life of the reactor. (NRC regulations also allow the use of

third-party guarantees such as a parent company guarantee, accompanied by a financial test, a

surety bond, insurance, or some combination of assurance mechanisms. However, almost all

power reactor licensees use prepayment or sinking fund external trust accounts.)

In recent license transfers involving sales of entire nuclear plants, all of which have been to

non-rate-regulated companies, the sellers have typically transferred the entire amounts

accumulated in external decommissioning trusts. Generally, these amounts have exceeded the

minimums calculated with the generic formulas in § 50.75(c). Normally, licensees have used

site-specific estimates that include decommissioning of non-radiological structures, restoration

of a site to “greenfield” condition, interim management and storage of spent fuel, and other

activities excluded from the NRC’s definition of decommissioning in § 50.2. Even for the

radiological part of the plant, site-specific costs are sometimes greater than the generic formula

amount. As a result, in most nuclear plant sales so far, decommissioning funds in excess of the

minimum NRC formula amounts have been deposited in external trust accounts reserved for

decommissioning.

However, the staff expects that applicants may soon propose to transfer only enough funds to

meet the NRC formulas and to retain for their own non-decommissioning uses funds exceeding

the formula amounts, even though the funds have already been deposited in decommissioning

trusts. Once a license transfer is consummated, the funds in excess of the formula amounts

would presumably be used by the transferor for whatever purposes (decommissioning or

otherwise) it and its rate regulator chose. In many cases, funds have been collected to

complete non-radiological decommissioning activities based on State or Federal rate regulatory

requirements. Such costs, and the funds reserved for them, are generally beyond the NRC’s

jurisdiction. However, some licensees have performed site-specific estimates with costs for

decommissioning (as defined in § 50.2) that are greater than the generic formula amounts. The

staff’s primary concern is the possible future withdrawal or non-transfer of funds designated for

radiological decommissioning (as defined in § 50.2) that are greater than the generic formula

amounts, but which, nevertheless, have been identified in a site-specific study as being

necessary to complete radiological decommissioning.

There is no requirement in § 50.75 to maintain more than the minimum amount in a

decommissioning trust. There is no mechanism for withdrawing any of the funds accumulated

in excess of the formula amounts from a decommissioning fund, but there is no explicit

prohibition against it, either. However, in 1988, in conjunction with the promulgation of § 50.75,

the Commission considered whether to permit the use of internal reserves as a

decommissioning funding method, and expressed its concern that, because the funds are not

designated for decommissioning, licensees might be tempted to use the funds for other

unrelated purposes (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988). The Commission determined that the

decommissioning funds should only be used for decommissioning, as defined by the NRC.

Furthermore, in discussing the minimum amounts required, the Commission has frequently
The Commissioners -4-

noted that a licensee may, under § 50.75, certify the minimum amounts or greater. In fact, the

Commission has, on three occasions, turned down the staff’s request to amend § 50.75 to 

permit licensees to certify a lesser amount if based on site-specific studies. 

2

The regulations concerning termination of a license in § 50.82 prohibit withdrawal of funds from

decommissioning trusts until specified stages of the decommissioning process are met.

Paragraph 50.82(a)(8)(i) permits decommissioning funds to be used if the expenses are for

legitimate decommissioning activities, would not reduce the value of the decommissioning trust

to an amount below that necessary to place and maintain the reactor in safe storage, and would

not inhibit the licensee’s ability to make up complete funding of any eventual shortfalls in the

decommissioning trust. Section 50.82(a)(8)(ii) permits a maximum of three percent to be used

for decommissioning planning prior to the submission of a site-specific decommissioning cost

estimate. In the statement of consideration accompanying the 1996 rulemaking that 3

established this three percent limit, the Commission wrote, “The final rule permits licensees to

withdraw up to three percent of the generic formula amount for planning at any time during the

decommissioning planning process, including planning that occurs while a plant is still

operating.” (Emphasis added; see 61 FR 39284; July 29, 1996) 

Although this statement clarifies that withdrawals are allowable only up to three percent of the

formula amounts, and is applicable to those withdrawals made by licensees of operating plants,

the statement does not appear to explicitly prohibit those situations in which funds in excess of

the formula amounts are kept by a licensee selling its plant and are not transferred as part of a

plant sale. In other words, it can be argued that such a situation does not constitute a 4

“withdrawal” for the purposes of § 50.82. Nevertheless, because of the statement of

consideration cited above, and because of the provisions in § 50.75 that provide that licensees

may certify to more, but not less than the generic formula amounts, the staff believes that the

Commission intended that funds designated for radiological decommissioning, once deposited

in external trust accounts, must remain in the trusts and cannot be withdrawn (or retained) by

licensees or used for other purposes, even if such funds are in excess of the formula amounts. 

Stated another way, the generic formula amounts in § 50.75(c) are to be considered as a

 A summary of the staff’s previous rulemaking proposals with respect to decommissioning costs is contained in a

2

memorandum from William D. Travers to Commissioners Dicus, Diaz, McGaffigan, and Merrifield, dated October 6, 1999 (“Recent

Developments With Respect to a Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Cost”). As indicated in that

memorandum, the staff intends to continue to accumulate cost data from plants that are undergoing decommissioning. However,

since the data will not likely be available for several years, the staff intends to defer rulemaking either to revise the generic formulas

in § 50.75(c) or to rely only on site-specific estimates (for which the data would provide a basis for staff evaluation). In the interim,

informal feedback from the nuclear power industry and from the staff’s review of the biennial decommissioning fund status reports

suggests that the generic formulas continue to estimate radiological decommissioning costs with reasonable accuracy, although

site-specific factors or unpredictable developments, such as technological improvements or a lack of low-level waste disposal

capacity, could increase or decrease future decommissioning costs.

 In addition to the 3 percent of the generic formula amounts allowed to be withdrawn for decommissioning planning, 3

another 20 percent may be withdrawn 90 days after the licensee submits its post-shutdown decommissioning activities report

(PSDAR). The staff has assumed that the 3 percent for planning may be withdrawn at any time, including before permanent

cessation of operations. 

 In the recent license transfer of Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick, the seller asked to retain decommissioning trusts,

4

ostensibly for tax reasons after it had sold its nuclear plant and was no longer an NRC licensee. The NRC acceded to this request

after conditioning the sale to ensure that funds held by the seller would remain available for decommissioning. Future requests

may propose the retention and use of “excess” funds by former licensees for non-decommissioning purposes.
The Commissioners -5-

minimum or a “floor,” with the Commission recognizing, through acceptance of higher, sitespecific estimates that additional funds may be needed.

Notwithstanding the staff’s view, because of the potential ambiguities in current

decommissioning regulations, the staff believes it would be beneficial for the Commission to

clarify when and to what extent withdrawals may be made or funds retained by a former

licensee.

Options 

In view of these concerns, the staff has developed three options for the Commission’s

consideration. Options 2(A) and 3(A); and 2(B) and 3(B), respectively, are closely related and,

in the staff’s view, can be used in sequence together.

Option 1

The Commission allows all withdrawals from decommissioning trusts whose funds exceed the

amounts currently required under the generic formulas in § 50.75. (The staff believes that it is

possible to distinguish between direct or indirect withdrawals of funds as a result of a license

transfer action and withdrawals by licensees not involved in transfers.)

Pros

1. Option 1 can be read as being consistent with the literal requirements of § 50.82.

2. Option 1 would not unnecessarily burden licensees or their rate regulators with costs for

retaining funds in excess of the NRC formula amounts.

3. Even if the generic formulas were later found to underestimate decommissioning costs, 

additional conservatism is contained in 10 CFR 50.75 -- that is, the regulations require

licensees to fully fund decommissioning before they expect to permanently cease

operations. (As stated previously, a rate-regulated licensee has until permanent

shutdown to fully accumulate estimated decommissioning funds. A non-rate-regulated

licensee is required to have fully funded or otherwise guaranteed decommissioning

when its rates ceased to be regulated.) Five years before expected permanent

shutdown, licensees are required to consider site-specific factors in making up any

shortfalls in decommissioning funds by the time operations cease. (If a licensee

permanently ceases operations prematurely -- that is, before the end of its expected 40-

year life -- any funding shortfalls are to be addressed on a case-by-case basis pursuant

to § 50.82(c).) If a shortfall subsequently develops because the generic formulas

underestimate decommissioning costs, the fund has up to 60 years to accrue additional

funds through deposits and earnings (or earnings alone) to complete decommissioning. 

This assumes that trust fund earnings will exceed the rate of escalation in

decommissioning costs. To date, there has been no indication that this assumption is

wrong. 
The Commissioners -6-

Cons

1. If the generic formulas turn out to have underestimated decommissioning costs,

withdrawals could reduce the cushion that would otherwise be available to meet cost

increases. Although the staff is reasonably confident of the accuracy of the generic

formulas, some future event could cause decommissioning costs to increase

unexpectedly, which could lead to a lack of funds to complete decommissioning.

2. If licensees filed for bankruptcy protection, bankruptcy courts might more readily allow

the withdrawal of “excess” decommissioning trust funds to pay the nondecommissioning-related claims of creditors if the Commission issues guidance

supporting this interpretation.

Option 2(A)

The Commission approves staff issuance of a regulatory information summary (RIS) and

revised guidance that would state that, based on the statement of consideration for the 1996

rule cited above, the Commission’s intent has been not to allow any withdrawals from or nontransfer of trust funds when the withdrawal would cause the fund to drop below the amount of

the generic formulas in § 50.75(c) by the time of permanent cessation of operation. 

(Withdrawals would be allowed for routine tax and administrative expenses and the three

percent allowed for decommissioning planning in § 50.82(a)(8)(ii).) In addition, when trust

funds exceed the amounts calculated from the generic formulas because they are based on

site-specific decommissioning cost estimates, the RIS would also clarify that NRC regulations

prohibit withdrawals or non-transfer of any funds needed to meet the higher site-specific

estimates. The RIS would further distinguish between funds reserved for decommissioning as

defined by the NRC and funds clearly earmarked by a licensee and its rate regulator for

decommissioning activities not included in the NRC’s definition. Thus, withdrawals of funds

would not be allowed when the funds exceed the generic formula amounts but are based on a

site-specific cost estimate tied to activities included in the NRC’s definition of decommissioning.

(Because many licensees hold funds in decommissioning trusts both for “decommissioning”

costs as defined by the NRC in § 50.2 and for other decommissioning-related activities such as

spent fuel management and “greenfield” costs, the staff believes that expenses not

encompassed by the NRC’s definition of “decommissioning” must be specifically earmarked

before withdrawals can be allowed, so that the staff can accurately determine the amounts left

in the trust fund for “decommissioning.”) To clarify such distinctions, the staff would issue

revised guidance to ensure that licensees understand that amounts in their decommissioning

trusts, including any sub-accounts under the trusts, should be clearly designated. Although the

existing guidance contains this information, the staff will revise guidance to emphasize the

importance of clearly identifying spending categories. Any intended withdrawal (other than for

routine tax and administrative expenses and for decommissioning planning as described above)

should require written notification to the NRC at least 30 working days prior to the intended

withdrawal. If the person responsible for managing the funds receives a written objection from

the NRC during that time period, the withdrawal would not be allowed.
The Commissioners -7-

Option 2(B)

In addition to the disallowance of withdrawals covered under Option 2(A), the RIS would also

clarify that the NRC asserts jurisdiction over withdrawals of funds, even if such funds were

specifically reserved for decommissioning activities beyond the NRC’s definition of

decommissioning. The RIS would also distinguish funds deposited to cover, and specifically

earmarked for, interim spent fuel management costs, which are excluded from the NRC’s

definition of decommissioning but for which general provisions for funding assurance exist in 

§ 50.54(bb). 

Pros

1. Funds in trust accounts, including those exceeding the generic formula amounts but tied

to the NRC’s definition of “decommissioning,” would clearly be available for

decommissioning. If the withdrawal or non-transfer of any trust funds, including those

reserved for non-NRC-defined decommissioning activities were prohibited, all funds,

once deposited in a decommissioning trust, would be available for NRC-defined

decommissioning before any other purpose. An additional margin of certainty would be

provided if future decommissioning cost estimates unexpectedly increase.

2. Using the process established by the decommissioning trust rulemaking, assuming the

NRC issues it as a final rule essentially as proposed with respect to this issue, would

avoid additional rulemaking effort.

Cons

1. An interpretation of the regulations that could be construed by some to go beyond their

apparent literal wording might lead to legal challenges, particularly if Option 2(B) were

chosen. As noted above, distinguishing between NRC-defined decommissioning and

other decommissioning costs mandated by rate regulators should help to minimize any

challenges.

2. Some licensees might reduce, or their rate regulators might allow the reduction of,

future decommissioning collections to compensate for the inaccessibility of funds

already in decommissioning trusts. Alternatively, licensees might designate all excess

decommissioning funds for non-radiological decommissioning in order to circumvent

NRC policy on this issue. Thus, the overall amount of decommissioning funds over the

long term might not change with Options 2(A) or 2(B).

Option 3(A)

The Commission approves staff initiation of rulemaking that would explicitly prohibit any

withdrawals from or non-transfer of trust funds when the withdrawal would cause the fund to

drop below the amount of the generic formulas in § 50.75(c) by the time of permanent cessation

of operation. (Withdrawals would be allowed for routine tax and administrative expenses and

the three percent allowed for decommissioning planning in § 50.82(a)(8)(ii).) In addition, when

trust funds exceed the amounts calculated from the generic formulas because they are based

on site-specific decommissioning cost estimates, the rulemaking would also clarify that
The Commissioners -8-

withdrawal or non-transfer of any funds needed to meet the higher site-specific estimates would

be prohibited. The rulemaking would further distinguish between funds reserved for

decommissioning as defined by the NRC and funds clearly earmarked by a licensee and its rate

regulator for decommissioning activities not included in the NRC’s definition. Thus, withdrawals

of funds would not be allowed when the funds exceed the generic formula amounts but are

based on a site-specific cost estimate tied to activities included in the NRC’s definition of

decommissioning. (Because many licensees hold funds in decommissioning trusts both for

“decommissioning” costs as defined by the NRC in § 50.2 and for other decommissioningrelated activities such as spent fuel management and “greenfield” costs, the staff believes that

expenses not encompassed by the NRC’s definition of “decommissioning” must be specifically

earmarked before withdrawals can be allowed, so that the staff can accurately determine the

amounts left in the trust fund for “decommissioning.”) To clarify such distinctions, the staff

would issue revised guidance to ensure that licensees understand that amounts in their

decommissioning trusts, including any sub-accounts under the trusts, should be clearly

designated. Although the existing guidance contains this information, the staff will revise

guidance to emphasize the importance of clearly identifying spending categories. Any intended

withdrawal (other than for routine tax and administrative expenses and for decommissioning

planning as described above) should require written notification to the NRC at least 30 working

days prior to the intended withdrawal. If the person responsible for managing the funds

receives a written objection from the NRC during that time period, the withdrawal would not be

allowed.

Option 3(B)

In addition to rulemaking to address the disallowance of withdrawals covered under Option

3(A), rulemaking under this option would also clarify that the NRC asserts jurisdiction over

withdrawals of funds, even if such funds were specifically reserved for decommissioning

activities beyond the NRC’s definition of decommissioning. The rulemaking would also

distinguish between funds deposited to cover, and specifically earmarked for, interim spent fuel

management costs, which are excluded from the NRC’s definition of decommissioning but for

which general provisions for funding assurance exist in § 50.54(bb). 

Pros

1. See Pro 1 under Options 2(A) and 2(B).

2. A rulemaking would explicitly clarify Commission policy in this area and would provide

for the greatest stakeholder involvement.

Cons

1. See Con 2 under Options 2(A) and 2(B).

2. See Con 3 under Options 2(A) and 2(B).

3. Rulemaking effort might displace other work.

4. Rulemaking would take about 2 years from start to finish, and would thus delay

clarification of Commission policy in this area.
The Commissioners -9-

Summary of Issue

On balance, the staff concludes that Option 2(A) should be pursued as an interim response to

current and expected future requests to make certain withdrawals from decommissioning trusts.

Over the longer term, the staff believes that rulemaking, as proposed in Option 3(A), should be

pursued in order to provide a more complete regulatory basis for the Commission’s policies in

this area. The staff believes that there is an insufficient regulatory basis to assert jurisdiction

over funds that are not included in the definition of “decommissioning” in § 50.2 and thus does

not recommend adoption of Options 2(B) and 3(B). For either Option 1 or Option 2(A) and 2(B),

based on the direction that the Commission gives the staff, the staff will prepare a regulatory

information summary (RIS) to inform licensees of the Commission’s policies in this area. If the

Commission selects Options 3(A) or 3(B), the staff will also prepare a rulemaking plan. The

staff will also update guidance, as appropriate.

The staff believes that this dual approach allows the most efficient and effective use of NRC

resources while at the same time ensuring the adequate protection of public health and safety. 

Further, if withdrawals only of funds reserved for NRC-defined decommissioning activities (or

are otherwise not designated for non-NRC-defined decommissioning) are prohibited, the impact

on licensees should be minimal. Notwithstanding the lack of an explicit prohibition in the

regulations, as described earlier in this paper it appears to have been the intent of the

Commission, as reflected in the statement of consideration of the 1996 final rule, that licensees

of operating plants cannot withdraw funds in excess of the generic formula amounts.

Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, with respect to any subsequent licensee

requests to withdraw funds ostensibly deposited in error for disposal of previously replaced

steam generators or other components or structures, the staff concludes that such withdrawals

would be consistent with the underlying purposes of the existing rule as reflected in the

statement of considerations as long as such withdrawals would not cause decommissioning

trust funds to drop below either the generic formula amounts or NRC-defined decommissioning

costs identified in a site-specific study. No funds would be “lost” to decommissioning. In

making such determinations, the staff would also consider whether the requestor would remain

an “electric utility” as defined in § 50.2.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief

Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission paper for resource implications and has no

objections.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Commission:

1. Select Options 2(A) and 3(A).

2. Note that, depending on the option(s) that the Commission chooses and the direction it

gives to the staff, the staff will issue a RIS, revise guidance, as appropriate, and prepare

a rulemaking plan.
The Commissioners -10-

/RA by William F. Kane Acting For/

William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations
The Commissioners -9-

not recommend adoption of Options 2(B) and 3(B). For either Option 1 or Option 2(A) and 2(B),

based on the direction that the Commission gives the staff, the staff will prepare a regulatory

information summary (RIS) to inform licensees of the Commission’s policies in this area. If the

Commission selects Options 3(A) or 3(B), the staff will also prepare a rulemaking plan. The

staff will also update guidance, as appropriate.

The staff believes that this dual approach allows the most efficient and effective use of NRC

resources while at the same time ensuring the adequate protection of public health and safety. 

Further, if withdrawals only of funds reserved for NRC-defined decommissioning activities (or

are otherwise not designated for non-NRC-defined decommissioning) are prohibited, the impact

on licensees should be minimal. Notwithstanding the lack of an explicit prohibition in the

regulations, as described earlier in this paper it appears to have been the intent of the

Commission, as reflected in the statement of consideration of the 1996 final rule, that licensees

of operating plants cannot withdraw funds in excess of the generic formula amounts.

Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, with respect to any subsequent licensee

requests to withdraw funds ostensibly deposited in error for disposal of previously replaced

steam generators or other components or structures, the staff concludes that such withdrawals

would be consistent with the underlying purposes of the existing rule as reflected in the

statement of considerations as long as such withdrawals would not cause decommissioning

trust funds to drop below either the generic formula amounts or NRC-defined decommissioning

costs identified in a site-specific study. No funds would be “lost” to decommissioning. In

making such determinations, the staff would also consider whether the requestor would remain

an “electric utility” as defined in § 50.2.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief

Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission paper for resource implications and has no

objections.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Commission:

1. Select Options 2(A) and 3(A).

2. Note that, depending on the option(s) that the Commission chooses and the direction it

gives to the staff, the staff will issue a RIS, revise guidance, as appropriate, and prepare

a rulemaking plan.

/RA by William F. Kane Acting For/

William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

P:\SP02-0085.wpd *See previous concurrence

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML013550423

OFFICE TECH ED RPRP BC/RPRP D:DRIP

NAME Kleene* RSWood* CCarpenter* DMatthews*

DATE 1/8/2002 1/15/2002 1/16/2002 2 /1 /2002

OFFICE OGC* ADIP* D:NRR* EDO

NAME LChandler WBorchardt SCollins WTravers WKane for

DATE 4 /18/2002 5 /2/2002 5/6/2002 05/16/2002

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY