POLICY ISSUE

(Notation Vote)

March 23, 2006 SECY-06-0065

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations /RA/

SUBJECT: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON

DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING ASSURANCE

PURPOSE:

To obtain Commission approval of the staff’s recommendation to address the Office of the

Inspector General’s (OIG) recommendations in OIG-06-A-07 that the NRC: (1) require

verification of decommissioning fund balances from trustees and (2) require specific prudent

investment restrictions for decommissioning trust funds.

BACKGROUND:

On February 6, 2006, the OIG issued its audit report entitled “Follow-up Audit of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Decommissioning Fund Program” (OIG-06-A-07). The stated

purpose of the audit was to identify opportunities for improvement in the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) decommissioning funding assurance program (for operating

power reactors), and evaluate the implementation of recommendations made in an earlier OIG

audit report, OIG 99A-16, dated February 1, 2000.

In OIG-06-A-07, the OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) seek,

and the Commission provide, direction on whether to (1) require verification of

decommissioning trust fund balances from trustees, and (2) require specific prudent investment 

restrictions for decommissioning trust funds. The OIG concluded that without these two

requirements in place, all of the decommissioning trust funds accumulated to date are “at risk.” 

CONTACT: Steven R. Hom, NRR/DPR

 301-415-1537
The Commissioners -2-

 

The OIG also recommends that the EDO implement certain quality assurance measures for the

staff’s review of biennial decommissioning funding status reports and update the NRC’s formula

in 10 CFR 50.75 for calculating a minimum decommissioning cost estimate to determine

required levels of decommissioning funding assurance. The staff is responding separately to

the OIG recommendations made to the EDO regarding quality assurance and the NRC formula. 

The first two items listed above regarding which Commission direction is being sought are

viewed as Commission policy matters and are the subject of this paper.

DISCUSSION:

Verification of Decommissioning Fund Balances By Trustees

In OIG-06-A-07, the OIG states that “NRR cannot verify” that licensees are providing

reasonable assurance of decommissioning funding “consistent with prudent business

practices.” Prudent business practices, according to the OIG, call for the verification of trust

fund balances by, at a minimum, requiring “trustees to report . . . directly to the NRC” the value

of trust funds. The OIG states that NRR “merely relies on licensee representations for the

amount accumulated in decommissioning trust funds based on 10 CFR 50.9.” This regulation

provides in relevant part:

Completeness and accuracy of information. (a) Information provided to the

Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required

by statute or by the Commission’s regulations, orders, or license conditions to be

maintained by the applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all

material respects.

In the OIG’s view, decommissioning trust funds are at risk because the NRC (in addition to not

having “specific prudent investment restrictions,” as discussed below) does not require trustees

to verify decommissioning trust fund balances. Therefore, the OIG’s first recommendation is

that the NRC require trustees to verify decommissioning trust fund balances.

The staff disagrees with this recommendation, and accordingly disagrees that the trust funds

are at risk due to the lack of required trustee verification, for the following reasons.

First, the NRC relies on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9 to ensure complete and accurate

information is submitted not only with respect to biennial decommissioning funding status

reports, but also concerning a wide range of information supplied by licensees upon which

public health and safety determinations are made. Moreover, licensees, when providing

information to the NRC, are subject not only to 10 CFR 50.9, but are also subject to criminal

penalties under Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2273, for

willfully violating the regulation, and subject to criminal penalties under Section 1001 of Title 18

of the U.S. Code, for making a material false statement, regardless of whether the statement in 

question is made under oath or affirmation. Thus, there would appear to be ample incentive for

licensees to accurately report the balances of their trust funds, given the foregoing provisions.
The Commissioners -3-

Second, it is unclear to the staff to what degree requiring trustees to file reports with the NRC

would improve the level of certainty that trust funds are at the level that licensees report. The

assumption that licensees could file false information with the NRC could equally apply to the 

trustees. Furthermore, even if the level of certainty increases, the staff is aware of no previous

cases where licensees filed false trust fund balance information. Thus, the staff questions

whether the new requirement proposed by the OIG is worthwhile, particularly since other

regulatory authorities such as state public utility commissions continue to have

decommissioning funding oversight roles for the vast majority of licensees, i.e., licensees that

are electric utilities or that have access to non-bypassable charges.

Specific Prudent Investment Restrictions for Decommissioning Trust Funds

The OIG’s second recommendation is that the NRC should “require specific prudent investment

restrictions for decommissioning trust funds.” According to the OIG, without such specific

restrictions (and trustee verification of fund balances), all of the accumulated decommissioning

trust funds are at risk. The staff disagrees with this recommendation and the OIG’s conclusion

that all of the trust funds are at risk without specific NRC investment restrictions.

It should be noted at the outset that at the end of 2003, new investment restrictions in 

10 CFR 50.75(h) applicable to non-electric utility licensees became effective. Basically, the

new restrictions prohibit decommissioning trust fund investments in licensee and nuclear sector

securities or obligations, and require that investments be made in accordance with the “prudent

investor standard” referred to in the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) but only in the absence of applicable state or Federal investment standards. The

restrictions do not apply to electric utility licensees because the Commission recognized that

other regulatory authorities have oversight of such licensees’ decommissioning trust funds.

The staff does not agree that the NRC should require specific or more detailed investment

restrictions for several reasons. First, the NRC historically has declined to inject itself into the

financial management details of decommissioning funding, particularly in the case of regulated

licensees, which still make up most licensees. As the Commission previously stated in

Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors, Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 15427, 15428 (April 8, 1996) “the NRC recognized in

the 1988 decommissioning rule [10 CFR 50.75], the PUCs’ [public utility commissions’] and

FERC’s authority to set annual contribution rates to decommissioning funds and to establish

investment and other management criteria for the funds. The PUCs and FERC also actively

monitor these decommissioning funds as part of their rate regulatory responsibility.” The

furthest the NRC has gone is to impose on non-electric utilities, i.e., those not subject to

traditional cost of service rate-making regulation, the new 2003 restrictions which basically 

follow the FERC’s rules (18 CFR 35.32). Otherwise, the NRC’s policy has been not to inject

itself into the financial affairs of licensees, whether in the specific financial area of

decommissioning funding assurance or more broadly in the general area of licensees’ financial

qualifications to safely operate and maintain their facilities.
The Commissioners -4-

Second, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which examines trust

operations at FDIC-insured banks, as of August 2004 all states except one have adopted the

Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) or a quasi-UPIA. The UPIA basically provides for the

duties and responsibilities of trustees including those duties and responsibilities relating to

investment portfolios. Given state legislation adopting the UPIA to govern trust investments, as

well as any other investment requirements of public utility commissions or FERC, the staff does

not believe the NRC should step in with potentially inconsistent requirements.

If the NRC were to undertake to impose new specific investment restrictions, it should be

recognized that at this time the NRC lacks the expertise to develop and continually reassess

investment restrictions. Special expertise would have to be acquired in order to assess and

properly balance levels of investment risk against licensees’ and the public’s interests in

maximizing investment returns to ensure that sufficient decommissioning funds are

accumulated. Clearly, the NRC would want to minimize the likelihood of decommissioning trust

funds performing poorly due to new specific investment restrictions, thereby unintentionally

undermining the objective of 10 CFR 50.75.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff does not believe that there is a need to require verification of trust balances by

trustees and to require specific investment restrictions beyond the restrictions in 

10 CFR 50.75(h). However, the OIG recommendations are essentially policy matters and the

staff agrees that they should be referred to the Commission for consideration and that the

Commission should decide whether the staff should undertake efforts to implement the

recommendations. The staff recommends that the Commission make no changes with regard

to verification of trust balances by trustees or requirement of specific investment restrictions.

RESOURCES:

Because the staff does not recommend implementation of the OIG proposals, the staff has not

developed detailed resource impacts. Should the Commission decide to pursue rulemaking,

the staff would typically budget 2.4 FTE over a two-year period and specialized contract

resources on the order of $100K would be needed. Implementation costs resulting from

rulemaking would depend upon the extent of the rule changes. 

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has

no objection.

/RA William F. Kane Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations
The Commissioners -5-

Second, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which examines trust

operations at FDIC-insured banks, as of August 2004 all states except one have adopted the Uniform

Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) or a quasi-UPIA. The UPIA basically provides for the duties and

responsibilities of trustees including those duties and responsibilities relating to investment portfolios. 

Given state legislation adopting the UPIA to govern trust investments, as well as any other investment

requirements of public utility commissions or FERC, the staff does not believe the NRC should step in

with potentially inconsistent requirements.

If the NRC were to undertake to impose new specific investment restrictions, it should be recognized that

at this time the NRC lacks the expertise to develop and continually reassess investment restrictions. 

Special expertise would have to be acquired in order to assess and properly balance levels of

investment risk against licensees’ and the public’s interests in maximizing investment returns to ensure

that sufficient decommissioning funds are accumulated. Clearly, the NRC would want to minimize the

likelihood of decommissioning trust funds performing poorly due to new specific investment restrictions,

thereby unintentionally undermining the objective of 10 CFR 50.75.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff does not believe that there is a need to require verification of trust balances by trustees and to

require specific investment restrictions beyond the restrictions in 

10 CFR 50.75(h). However, the OIG recommendations are essentially policy matters and the staff

agrees that they should be referred to the Commission for consideration and that the Commission

should decide whether the staff should undertake efforts to implement the recommendations. The staff

recommends that the Commission make no changes with regard to verification of trust balances by

trustees or requirement of specific investment restrictions.

RESOURCES:

Because the staff does not recommend implementation of the OIG proposals, the staff has not

developed detailed resource impacts. Should the Commission decide to pursue rulemaking, the staff

would typically budget 2.4 FTE over a two-year period and specialized contract resources on the order of

$100K would be needed. Implementation costs resulting from rulemaking would depend upon the

extent of the rule changes. 

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the

Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection.

/RA William F. Kane Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML060590524

OFFICE DPR:NRR Tech Editor PFPB:BC DPR

NAME SHom PKleene EMcKenna CGrimes

DATE 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/01/2006

OFFICE OGC NRR EDO

NAME KWinsberg JDyer (MWeber for) LReyes

DATE 03/08/2006 03/13/06 03/23/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Commissioners -6-