ML19295F133
| ML19295F133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19295F134 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-482, NUDOCS 8012110612 | |
| Download: ML19295F133 (48) | |
Text
, 0:teber 23,1930 c.LLw)
FTC'/. f0- W~L.-
For:
The Comissioners FroT:
Harold R. Denton, Director
[
j7 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation' I
J N
Thru:
Executive Director for Operations j
Subject:
PETITION FOR RULE MAKING FROM PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP ON REQUIRED LEVELS OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION Discussion:
On April 22, 1930, the Commission published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (45 FR 26973) requesting public comment on a letter dated De: ember 20, 1979 to the General Counsel of the Co=ission by the Public Citizen Litigation Group (PCLG). The letter requested that the Comission amend 10 CFR E 140.11(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 Mw(e) or more from $150 million to $460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection.
The Co=ission directed that the letter be treated as a petition for rule making. Pertinent portions of the General Counsel's February 19, 1980 response to the PCLG 1etter were also published.
PCLG suggests that the insurance industry should be required to combine the $300 million in property insurance that it sells to reactor operators with the $160 million in primary liability insurance it provides to utilities under the Price-Anderson Act to offer a combined level of liability insurance totaling 5460 million." Eleven coment letters were re:eived on this petition.
(Attachment "A")
The eight comments received from utilities, trade groups or associations, and from the insurance pools disagree with the petitioner's arguments that the availability of $300 million in property insurance indicates that the $160 million prescribed by the Comission is not the " maximum amount available" as required by the Act.
- Tnis caper only accresses the insurance layers that are part of the overall limit of liability of $560 million.
For information concerning the staff's views on increasing or establishing a new limit of liability for the Price-h,r(,
Anderson Act, see SECY-SG-471.
Y)l
Contact:
Ira Dinitz
,M Ext. 492-8562
/
80123]o
(, j z-
2 Congressman Morris Udall submitted a connent requesting that the Cosmission institute a rule making proceeding.
The two other consent letters were submitted by an individual and the California Energy Cocnission.
The letter from the individual did not address any of the issues presented in the petition. The letter from the California Energy Cocaission addressed a number of concerns relating to the Price-Anderson Act, but only one m==ct specifically related to the petition.
The California Commission disagreed with the General Counsel's reliance on the legislative history of the Price-Anderson Act (indicating no dissatisfaction by the Congress with the insurance program in effect) for not considering property insurance as part of financial protection. The staff does not agree with the California Commission's position. As discussed below, various Congressional committees concerned with nuclear energy have over the years expressed detailed familiarity with all aspects of imple-mentation of the Price-Anderson Act including, specifically, the setting of the maximum level of financial protection.
Based on an evaluation of the coments received and for the reasons set forth below, the staff recomends that the Cornission deny the petition.
Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as araended, states that "[t]he amount of financial protection required shall be the amount of liability insurance available from private sources... provided, that for facilities designed for producing substantial arounts of electricity and having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more, the amount of financial protection required shall be the maximum acount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable tems from private sources..."
(emphasis added) As the General Counsel's February 19, 1980 letter to the petitioners states, NRC reculations implementing subsection 170b. of the Price-Anderson Act have historically adopted the amount provided by the nuclear liability insurance poc1s as the " maximum amount available" from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable tems. The pools increased the amount of liability insurance available in
--"wu buU2 o m o m..................
- " " " [..
U NRC Form 318B (4-79; NRCM 0240
.......,,.....,....r....c.-
- m. - m- =.
. January,1979 from $140 million to its present level of $160 million. 10 CFR 8 140.11(a)(4) requires emmercial operating reactor licensees to maintain primary financial prvtection of $160 million.
The Price-Anderson Act has been formally reviewed and extended twice over the last twenty years by the Congress and Congress has exercised continuous oversight over the Commission's implementation of the Price-Anderson Act.
In two comprehensive studies of the Price-Anderson Act issued by the AEC staff in June,1965 and January,1974, the staff specifically described the method used by the Cocaission in detemining the level. of required financial protection.1/ The study on
- Issues of Financial Protection Tn Nuclear Activities " December,1973, prepared by the Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Colur.bia University also described the implementation In the original enactment of the Price-Anderson Act.2) Congress recognized the of the Price-Anderson Act, difference between liability and pivpwty insurance and indicated that only liability insurance should be used in setting the level of financial protection.
In the report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy reporting out the 1957 amendments to the
' Atomic Energy Act which became the Price-Anderson Act, the Comittee stated:
Because of the magnitude of insuring reactors, the insurance companies joined together in pools. The insurance field has been traditionally developed by stock companies and by cutual companies. These two types of companies, in turn, are split beheen those companies which insure against third-party liability (casualty companies) and those companies which issue property insurance on the reactor facility itself. These four segments of the insurance companies each fonned their own pools to issue atociic insurance policies. The stock companies 1/
Selected Materials on Atoc:ic Energy Indemnity and Insurance Legislation Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy Print, March 1974, pp. 4 and 372.
2]
Id. at 78.
yo o
W u c 22 I
I OF F 6C E > _
sunNAME >
DATE
- NAC Form 3188 (4 79) NRCM 0240 e..........,....e.....e.:
....-n..-.
..have two pools. One is the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association (NELIA) and the other the Nuclear Energy Property Insurance Association (NEPIA). To the extent that the latter merely insures the reactor and its buildings it is not concerned with the financial protection which is required under the statute._ (eghasis added)3.f,
Reports of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for the 1965 and 1975 extensions of the Price-Andersor.
Act continued to equate the required level of financial protection with that' dollar amount that represented the maximum liability insurance made available by the nuclear pools. There has been no clear legislative history indicating Congressional interest in including property insurance in the amount available "for liability insurance" provided by large reactor operator licensees. As the February 19, 1980 General Counsel letter states:
When the ' secondary layer' of retrospective prestiusts was developed in 1974-1975, this matter was closely being studied by the Congress.
Congress did not amend Subsection 170b. as to primary insurance, nor did it require the Comission to modify its regulations. We can find no authority in the Act or our Regulations which would allow the Comission to take into account other types of insurance in detenninine the amount of liability insurance available.'
Liability insurance provided by the insurance pools is furnished on a voluntary basis. The Comission has no authority to compel the insurance pools to increase their liability capacity or to require the pools to transfer part of the property loss capacity to liability coverage. The staff is of the opinion that if the Congress had intended for subsection 170b. to include other kinds of insurance in the determination of the "maxiana amount available" then that subsection would have been so modified.
3/
JCAE Report, No. 296, 85th Congress,1st Session, May 9,1957, p.10.
2 l
y._
NRC Fo m 318814 79; NRCM 0240
,............,.......o,.c.-
..=-m-.
.. Therefore, the staff believes that 10 CFR I 140.ll(a)(4) is consistent with the requirenents of the Price-Anderson Act and recommends that the Comission deny the petition for rule making.
Reconnendation:
That the Comission:
(1) Approve publication of a Federal Register _
(Attachment "B") notice that would deny the petition for rule making; (2) Note that a letter (Attachment "C") will be sent to the Public Citizen Litigation Group infoming them of the denial.
(3) Note that a letter (Attactsnent "D") will be sent to the appropriate Congressional subcommittees informing them of the denial.
Coordination: The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
C' -n g g,.
HaroN k." DentIon, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
Attachment "A" Abstracts of Coments and Staff Response Attachment "B" Federal Register notice Attachment "C" Draf t letter to Public Citizen Litigation Group Attachment "D" Draft letter to Congressional subcomittees Distribution:
IDinitz Reading UFB Reading UFB Files NRR Reading Central Files D"*D D 'P~ J f ma al A s n
1 s-
"' I hRR
[NRRI
" EDO See attached yellow for concurrences EGCase HRDenton WDircks 10/p/80 10/ 7 80 10/ 0 /80 or r ic t > [. JJ RR ;.t).F.S...",....MRR:WIL
___NRR:UEB......
..0 ELD.-
....)J(RPs.._.
NRR:DE
?
See attached DMul_ lap $
ftVollmer IDinitz/cd T DNash JSaltzman
-- - 10/r/T/1L
. sheet- - -
--- -r svaavt
- 10/10/80 l0/10/80 10/10(80..
.10/.9/Ba.. __..
JD/P MO-o, u,,
nac ro.m 3188 (4J91 NRCM O240
...........,...,...e..c.
..,.-..r.
ATTACHMENT "A" ABSTRACTS OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSE 1.
Burt C. Proom, Amer can Nuclear Insurers and i
Ambrose Kelly, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters "The Congress has been aware that other insurance, in addition to liability insurance for the nuclear energy hazard is necessary...
Thus, the Congress never intended that the amounts of workers' compensation insurance, general liability insurance,... and other types of insurance... be considered by the NRC in determining the amount of liability insurance ava'ilable from private sources as financial protection... Congress directed the NRC by the amendment made to Section 170b in December 1975, that in determining the maximum amount of liability insurance available from private sources it include private liability insurance made available under the industry retrospective rating plan.
Had the Congress believed that other kinds of insurance were to be included in the NRC's determination, the law would have so stated."
STAFF RESPONSE This comment is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
Attachment "A"
_2 2.
Hubert H. Nexon, Commonwealth Edison "The Price-Anderson Act from its inception has dealt only with the amount of liability insurance available from private sources...
All the Act requires is that utilities buy the liability insurance that is made available...
Tne history confirms that the NRC has no authority to take irto account other types of insurance in determining how much liability insurance is available."
STAFF RESPONSE This comment is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
3.
Mr. Eddleman, private citizen "Why should ratepayers pay for Price-Anderson premiums.
I think the NRC should require that all nuclear insurance... should be liability insurance paid for by power company stockholders, not ratepayers."
STAFF RESPONSE Comments are not considered pertinent to the issues presented in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Attachment "A"
. 4 Peter D. Lederer, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York "It is clear that Congress did not intend that the capacity used for property insurance be included as part of the ' amount available' for liability insurance.
We agree with the Commission's Genert1 Counsel that the subsequent legislative history does not indicate any Congressional dissatisfaction with the Commission's implementation of the Act. There is no general mechanism available under our laws to compel any insurance company to sell a form of insurance it does not seek to...
The Commission has no power to create one."
STAFF RESPONSE This coment is consistent.with the staff's recomended disposition of the petition.
5.
Daniel E. Bensing, Washington Legal Foundation "A careful analysis of the current capacity of the insurance industry to meet the needs of the nuclear operators (at reasonable cost) indicates that the statutory mandate is being complied with under the current NRC regulations. The PCLG petition fails to recognize that the nuclear insurance pools cannot arbitrarily allocate capacity between property and liability coverage as directed by a federal regulatory agency. They can only provide the coverage private httachment "A"
_ t,.
underwriters are willing to accept.
Under current market conditions,
$160 million is the maximum amount of coverage available at reasonable market rates and conditions; no change in NRC regulations is necessary."
STAFF RESPONSE This cormient is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
6.
T. G. Woods, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company "The nuclear liability insurance available from the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is the maximum amount available from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms. The amount of nuclear liability insurance available is now $160 million.
In the area of nuclear liability insurance, there is $510 million coverage from the insurance industry and the utilities, with an additional
$50 million of government indemnity. There is no validity to assign the current property insurance to the liability area."
STAFF RESPONSE This coment is consistent with the staff's recomended disposition of the petition.
7.
Carl Walske, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
"The amount of financial protection required by statute is expressed as the ' amount of liability insurance available from private sources...'
Attachment "A"
. Yet, there has been no indication in statutory language or legislative history that Congress intended the amount of property insurance being offered to have any impact on the amount of liability insurance which licensees were required to maintain. Moreover, in 1975 Congress specifically enlarged the definition of maximum amount of liability insurance... Had Congress intended that other kinds of available insurance should also be included in the enlargement, it would surely have said so when focusing on that issue."
STAFF RESPONSE This comment is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
8.
William M. Chamberlain, California. Energy Commission "The NRC should increase the ' primary layer' financial protection by:
(1) requiring nuclear reactor licensees to offer to pay higher premiums in order to obtain greater amounts of private insurance coverage; (2) requiring each licensee to maintain separate financial protection for each nuclear facility; (3) requiring each licensee to provide additional financial protection by means of private contractual indemnities or by subjecting a portion of its assets to liability that might arise from a nuclear incident; (4) requiring increased financial protection for away-from-reactor spent fuel storage facilities, and (5) removing the investigative and legal Attachment "A" expenses of licensees and insurers from the coverage afforded by the primary layer insurance policies.
The NRC General Counsel's view that the Price-Anderson Act does not require any increase in the required amount of financial protection is based upon his conclusion that the Congress has not indicated its dis-satisfaction with NRC's approach.
It would be impossible of course, for Congress to exercise detailed oversight on every aspect of each of the hundreds... of programs.....
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has in the past used this ' Congressional inaction' rationale to upheld actions of the AEC or NRC that have appeared to be contrary to federal statute...
This rationale is inapplicable to the NRC's financial protection requirements..."
STAFF RESPONSE Since the enactment of the Price-Anderson Act; Congress has been very familiar with all aspects of its implementation.
Duri r.g the last modification and extension of the Act in 1974 and 1975, the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy held comprehensive hearings on the Act.
The bill extending the Act, now Public Law 94-197, was vigorously debated on the floors of both the Senate and the House.
It, as well as the bill extending the Act in 1965, continued to require financial protection equal to the maximum amount of. liability insurance available through private sources.
Finally, the Comission infonns the various Congressional subcomittees concerned with nuclear regulation of all matters relating to Price-Anderson.
Hence the Congress could act if dissatisfied with the Comission's implementation of the financial protection levels mandated in the Act.
Attachment "A" 9.
Travis J. Bowden, Alabama Power
" Inasmuch as insurance covering physical damage to property and extra expense of replacement power covers different risks, it is not appropriate to combine such coverage with liability insurance required of persons to operate large commercial nuclear power plants. Accordingly, the 5160 million of liability insurance provided by the nuclear insurance pools is the raximum amount available."
STAFF RESPONSE This comment is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
- 10. Morris K. Udall, Congressman "In response to the notice published in the Federal Register, I am writing to urge you to canmence a rule-making procedure to investigate the possibility of amending your regulations to financial protection requirements for nuclear facilities."
STAFF RESPONSE For the reasons given in the Commission paper, the staff believes the PCLG petition for rule making should be denied and a rule making proceeding not be commenced.
Attachment "A"
-S-11.
W. G. Counsil, Northeast Utilities a
"The existence of property insurance available in the amount of
$300 million has no bearing on whether individual insurers making up the insurance pool would be able to increase the amount of liability insurance they would underwrite, absent the property insurance. As the General Counsel also points out, insurance must be available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms.
There is no indication that any additional liability insurance is available which can meet those criteria and the statutory requirements."
STAFF RESPONSE This comment is consistent with the staff's recommended disposition of the petition.
Attachment "A"
l ATTACHMENT "B"
[7590-01]
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION 10 CFR PART 140
[ Docket.No.'FM-140-2]
Public Citizen Litigation Group Petition for Rule Making l
AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission.
ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rule Making.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Cosa.ission (NRC)'is hereby denying a petition for rule making (PRM-140-2) submitted by the Public Citizen Litigation Group in a letter to the General Counsel of the Comission dated Decsaber 20, 1979. The petition requested that the Comission amend its regulations relating to " Financial Protection Requirements and Indesanity Agreements," 10 CFR Part 140 to increase the amount of liability insurance required of persons licensed to operate large commercial nuclear power plants.
N FOR FURTHER INFORMATION C0fiTACT:
Ira Dinitz, Utility Finance Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Telephone (301) 492-8562.
Attachment "B"
-a-L...................
s- -l NHC Fovm 0188 (4 79) NRCM O240
..............,........ce:
e s,.- e..-
. SUPPLEMENTARY INF0PMTION: On April 22, 1980, the Commission published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (45 FR 26973) requesting public coment on a letter dated December 20, 1979 which was sent to the General Counsel of the Comission by the Public Citizen Litigation Group (PCLG). The letter requested that the Co: mission amend 10 CFR I 140.11(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection recuired of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 Mw(e) or more from $160 million to $460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection. The Comission directed that the letter be treated as a petition for rule making. Pertinent portions of the General Counsel's response were also published.
PCLG suggests that the nuclear insurance industry should be required to combine the $300 cillion in property insurance that it sells to reactor operators with the $160 million in primary liability insurance it provides to utilities under the Price-Anderson Act (Act) to offer a combined level of liability insurance totaling $460 million. Eleven coasnent letters were received. Both the petition and the corssents are available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Doctsaent Poom at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
The eight coments received from utilities, trade groups or associations, and from the insurance pools disagree with the petitioner's arguments Attachment "B" q
,q 3
,S.-
La ww o
i 05 F ICE >,,,,
I W '"" E
- h..
OME>,.
NRC Fo<m 3188 (4 79) NRCM 0240
..........,....,...o--.ce:
.. - n ne.
that the availability of $300 million in property insurance indicates that the $160 million prescribed by the Cescission is not the "naximum amount available" required by the Act.
The ninth comment letter requested that the Coeurission institute a rule making proceeding to increase the required financial protection amount.
~
The tenth -nt letter did not address any of the issues presented in the petition and was not considered by the Cosmission. The final letter, submitted by a state energy comission, addressed a number of different issues relating to the Price-Anderson Act, but only one comment specifically related to the petition. The comenter states that the Commission should not rely on the legislative history of the Act which indicates no dissatisfaction by Congress with the insurance program now in effect for not including property insurance as part of financial protection. The Cocnission does not agree with this comenter's statement. First, since the enact:nent of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957 Congress has closely followed the Cocaission's ic:plementation of the Act, including specifically the setting of the financial protection level. Second, the Comission continues te inform the appropriate Congressional subcomittees concerned with nuclear power of significant matters relating to Price-Anderson.
Hence, Congress could act if it was dissatisfied with the Cocnission's implementation of the financial protection levels mandated in the Act.
Attachment "B"
]DT D
- ]D'3~
B J!
\\
J<L i\\
m o~~
W"""
- E*
NRC Form 318B (4 791 NRCM 0240 eu..........v..........c.
..>.-m--.
i j
m Based on an evaluation of the coerents received and for the reasons set forth below, the Cornission concludes that 10 CFR 5140.11(a)f 4) is consistent with the requirements of the Price-Anderson Act. Accordingly.
the petition for rule making is denied.
Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 42 U.S.C.
12210, provides that "The amunt of financial protection required shall be the amount of liability insurance available from private sources...
provided, that for facilities designed for producing substantial amounts of electricity and having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more, the amount of financial protection required shall be the aximum amount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terns from private sources..."
(emphasisadded) As the General Counsel's February 19, 1980 letter to the petitioner states, HRC regulations implementing Subsection 170b. of the Price-Anderson Act have historically adopted the amount provided by the nuclear liability insurance pools as the "caximum amount available" from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms. The pools increased the amount of liability insurance available in January,1979 from $140 million to its present level of $160 million.
10 CFR S 140.11(a)(4) requires comercial operating reactor licensees to maintain prirary fluncial protection of $160 million.
The Price-Anderson Act has been formally reviewed and extended twice over the last twenty years by the Congress and Congress has exercised Attachment "B" 1
l OF ract >
W""E" NRCFo.m 3188 (4 79) NRCM O240
..............,....v....cs.
....-e>
continuous oversight over the Comission's implementation of the Price-Anderson Act.
In two comprehensive studies of the Price-Anderson Act issued by the AEC staff in June,1965 and January,1974, the staff specifically described the method used by the Comission in determining the level of required financial protection.
The study on " Issues of Financial Protection in Nuclear Activities." December,1973, prepared by the Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Columbia University also described the implanentation of the Price-Anderson Act.
In the original enactment of the Price-Anderson Act Congress recognized the difference between liability and property insurance and indicated that only liability insurance should be used in setting the level of financial protection.
In the report of the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy reporting out the 1957 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which became the Price-Anderson Act, the Comittee stated:
Because of the magnitude of insuring reactors, the insurance companies joined together in pools. The insurance field has been traditionally developed by stock companies and by mutual companies.
These two types of companies, in turn, are split between those companies which insure against third-party liability (casualty companies) and those companies which issue property insurance on the reactor facility itself. These four segments of the insurance companies each formed their own pools to issue atomic insurance policies. The stock companies have two pools. One is the fiuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association (NELIA) and the other the
,l/
Selected Materials on Atomic Energy Indemnity and Insurance Legislation, Joint Cocr:ittee on Atomic Energy Print, thrrch 1974, pp. 4 and 372.
2.f
& at 78.
Attachment "B" i
ecr -t y..
NRC Form 318B (4 79) NRCM 0240
..................,...o.r.ca-
....-e.-.
.... _ _ l g-)'
o a
9 o
o
_u..
o Nuclear Energy Property Insurance Association (NEPIA). To the extent that the latter merely insures the reactor and its buildings it is not concerned with the financial protection which is required under the statute.
(esaphasis added)3]
Reports of the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy for the 1965 and 1975 extensions of the Price-Anderson Act continued to equate the required level of financial protection with that dollar amount that represented the maximum liability insurance made available by the nuclear pools.
There has been no clear legislative history indicating Congressional interest in including property insurance in the amount available "for liability insurance" provided by, large reactor operator licensees. As the February 19, 1980 General Counsel lutter states:
When the ' secondary layer' of retrospective premiums was developed in 1974-1975, this matter was closely being studied by the Congress.
Congress did not amend Subsection 170b. as to primary insurance, nor did it require the Comission to modify its regulations. We can find no authority in the Act or our Regulations which would allow the Cocnission to take into account other types of insurance in determining the amount of liability insurance available."
Liability insurance provided by the insurance pools is furnished on a voluntary basis. The Comission has no authority to compel the insurance pools to increase their liability capacity or to require the pools to transfer part of the property loss capacity to liability coverage. The 3f JCAE Report, No. 296, 85th Congress,1st Session, tiay 9,1957, p.10.
Attachment "B" o"'"
- ^ *
- D^'*
g N R C F o< m 3188 (4 791 NRCM 0240
__ Cocnission believes that if the Congress had intended subsection 170b.
of the Atomic Energy Act or Comission regulations to consider insurance other than liability insurance in the detemination of the "mximum amount available," then the Price-Anderson Act (or its legislative history) would have been so modified.
In view of the foregoing, the Comission denies the petition for rule making filed by PCLG on December 20, 1979. A copy of the Comission's letter of dental is available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGJLATORY C0ffilSSION Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Connission Dated at Washington, DC, this day of 1980.
Attachment "B
l l
or r ict w i
............_,p..
{ --
sunNAME > --
""'E *....
NRC F com 3188 f 4 796 NRCM O240
..........,.. v..,. o i c e me - n >- =*
ATTACHMDG "C" Public Citizen Litigation Group ATTN: Mr. William B. Schultz Hr. Alan B. Morrison Suite 700 2000 P Street. NW Washington, DC 20036 Gentlemen:
This is in regard to your request to-have the Cocaission amend 10 CFR Part 140.11(a)(4) as contained in your letter of Deceinber 20, 1979.
After careful review and consideration of your petition and based on an evaluation of the coments received in response to a Federal Register notice (45 FR 26773), the Nuclear Regulatory Comission has denied the petition for rule making for the reasons set forth in the attached Federal Recister notice.
Sincerely, Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Coomission
Enclosure:
Federal Register notice Attachment "C" i
OF r iC E an> l.........
_...........A.,
NRC Form 318B 14 79) NRCM 0240
.............,....,.....ee:
.... - n w
ATTACINENT "D" The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chaiman Subcosmittee on Energy and Power Coenittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
On April 22, 1980, the Comission published a Notice in the Federal Recister (45 FR 26973) requesting public cooment on a petition for rule ruking sent to the General Counsel of the Cosnission on December 20, 1979 by the Public Citizen 1.itigation Group. The petition requested that the Con:ission amend 10 CFR 140.ll(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the acount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 N(e) or core fro:n $160 million to $460 million plus the amount availabic as secondary financial protection. Eleven coment letters were received on the petition. After careful consideration and evaluation of the cocuents received, the Cocuission has denied the petition for rule making.
Attached for your infomation is a copy of a Notice to be published in the Federal Recister which sets forth the reasons for the dental.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister notice cc: Rep. Clarence J. Brown see at*JchCliEet for 1centical letters sent,to:
i O ' " E
- b.............
f
...b.
Attachment "D" W" AM C
- DA1E>,,,
NRC F orm 3188 (4 791 NRCM 0240
.............,...,-..--.ce:
....-e.*-.
.. n - _
2 Identical Letters sa.nt to:
The Honorable Toby Moffett. Chairman Subcoacittee on Environment. Energy and s
Natural Resources Cornittee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington. DC 20515 cc: Rep. paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
The Honorable Gary Hart. Chairman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate
~
Washington, DC 20510 cc: Sen. Alan Simpson A
e Attachment "D" i
o"'c c M..
""W U"'E*
NRC Form 3188 (4 791 NRCM 0240
............,e..,.....cs:
me -m ***
_ _ _ _ _ -.. _ ATTACINEhT "D" The Honorable Horris K. Udall, Chairman Subcomittes on Energy and the Environment Corwittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On April 22, 1980, the Comission published a Notice in the Federal Register (45 FR 26973) requesting public comment on a petition for rule making sent to the General Counsel of the Commission on Decesaber 20, 1979 by the Public Citizen Litigation Group. The petition requested that the CoC:nission amend 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 Mw(e) or more from $160 taillion to $460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection. Eleven corrent letters were received on the petition including your letter in which you recomended that the Comission institute a rule making proceeding to increase the required financial protection amount. After careful consideration and evaluation of the coments received, the Comission has denied the petition for rule making.
Attached for your infor=ation is a copy of a Notice to be published in the Federal Register _ which sets forth the reasons for the denial.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Federal Reg 1 ster' notite o" e q..
.4...._.._..........
cc: Rep. Stever Syms "a"*
oa"
- NRC Form 318814 79) NRCM 0240
...........,.v.....c.
....-n..
G.J/g M
x
~
N kl0 y
a5f
}9; a k ;!;C //C/ i1 D
/
=
CM For:
Tr.e Comissioners From:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor P.egulation he. Director for Operations Thru:
Subject:
PETITION FOR RULE MAKING FROM PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP ON REQUIRED LEVELS OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION Discussion:
On April 22, 1980, the Comission published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (45 FR 26973) requesting public coment on a letter dated December 20, 1979 YMck = sent to the General Counsel of the Comission by the Public Citizen Litigation Group (PCLG).
The letter requested that the Comission amend 10 CFR [
140.11(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 N(e) or more from $160 million to
$460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection.
The Comission directed that the letter be treated as a petition for rule making.
Pertinent portions of the General Counsel'sqponse to the PCLG letter were also published.
F#4. /( / f k PCLG suggests that the insurance industry should be required to combine the $300 million in property insurance that it sells to reactor operators with the $160 million in primary liability insurance it provides to utilities under the Price-Anderson Act to offer a combined level of liability insurance totaling $460 million.
Eleven coment letters were received on this petition.
(Attachment"A*)
The eight coments received from utilities, trade groups or associations, and from the insurance pools disagree with the petitioner's argunents that the availability of $300 million in property insurance indicates that the $160 million prescribed by the Commission is not the " maximum amount available" s required by the Act.
Contact:
Ira vin 1u l
l Or e n:e W... /. 92 r.3 E5 2.......................................
su AN4Mr >............................ ~..............................................
cATe >,..............................................................................................................
N R C F O R M 31 E 16-7 7 -
@ U. 5. GOVE ANMENT PRINTING OF F ICE 1977-237-025
_2 Congressman fiorris Udall submitted a coment requesting that the Cocrission institute a rule making proceeding.
The two other coment letters were submitted by an individual and the California Energy Cocuission.
The letter from the individual did not address any of the issues presented in the petition.
The letter from the California Energy Comission addressed a number of concerns relating to the Price-Anderson Act, but only one coment specifically related to the petition.
The California Commission disagreed with the General Counsel's reliance on the legislative history of the Price-Anderson Act (indicating no dissatisfaction by the Congress with the insurance program in effect) for not considering property insurance as part of financial protection. The staff does not agree with the California Comission's position.
As discussed below, various Congressional comittees concerned with nuclear energy have over the years expressed detailed familiarity with all aspects of imple-mentation of the Price-Anderson Act including, specifically, the setting of the swximum level of financial protection.
Based on an evaluation of the coments received and for the reasons set forth below, the staff recomends that the Comission deny the petition.
Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, states that "[t]he amount of financial protection required shall be the amount of Ihbility insurance available from private sources... provided, that for facilities designed for producing substantial amounts of electricity and having a rated cat >acity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more, the amount of financial protection reouired shall be the maximum ancunt available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms fron private sources..."
(emphasis added)
As the General Counsel's February 19, 1980 letter to the petitioners states NRC regulations implementing j
Jubsection 170b. of the Price-Anderson Act have historically adopted the amount provided by the nuclear liability insurance pools as the " maximum amount available" from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable terns.
The pools increased the amount of liability insurance available in CFF'CE>..........................................................................
SURNAME >
04Te >....................
N R C F O R M 318 t 6-7 7' W u S. GOVE RNMENT PRINTING OF FICE 1977-237-C25
1
~
3 January,1979 from $140 million to its present level
____ of $160 million. Farrthem 10 CFRf140.11(a)(4) requires comercial operating reactor licensees to maintain primary financial protection of $160 million.
The Price-Anderson Act has been fomally reviewed j
and extended twice over the last twenty years by the Congress and Congress has exert:ised continuous oversight over the Comission's implementation of the Price-Anderson Act.
In two comppphensive
- studies of the Price-Anderson Act pnp'?Ef by the d
AEC staff in June,1965 and January,1974, the staff specifically described the method used by the Comission in detemining the level of required financial protection.1j The study on " Issues of Financial Protection in Nuclear Activities " Decenter,1973, prepared by the Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Columbia University also described the implenentation I
of the Price-Anderson Act.2] In the original enactment of the Price-Anderson Act Congntss recognized the difference between liability and property insurance and indicated that only liability insurance should be used in setting the level of financial protection.
In the report of the Joint Conmittee on Atomic Energy reporting out the 1957 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which became the Price-Anderson Act, the Connittee stated:
/Because of the magnitude of insuring reactors, the insurance companies joined together in pools. The insurance field has been traditionally developed by stock companies and by mutual companies.
These two types of companies, in turn, are split between those companies which I
insure against third-party liability (casualty companies) and those companies which issue property insurance on the reactor facility itself. These four segments of the insurance companies each formed their own pools to issue atomic insurance policies. The stock companies 1/
Selected Materials on Atomic Energy Indemnity and Insurance Legislation Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy Print, March 1974, pp. 4 and 372.
l lD**D) lD 3' y T w o k o L 1) A l@n L 2] 3 at 78.
OFFKE >
Su% AWE >_______,__,,._,,___,,,__,___,____________________,,______.____________.______.___
CATE > [_______________ ___________,_____________ _______________,____.___ __ _____._________,
WC Form 316 (2-761 N ACV O2C40 e..
3 n. g :n-g e on :c r %, -rer:g -'
- s' t e e.
4_
have two pools.
One is the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association (NELIA) and the other the Nuclear Energy Propertylnsurance Association (NEPIA).
To the extent that the latter merely insures the reactor and its buildincs it is not concerned with the financial protection which is required under the statute.
(emphasis added)3/
Reports of the Joint Conraittee on Atomic Energy for the 1%5 and 1975 extensions of the Price-Anderson Act continued to equate the required level of financial protection with that dollar amount that represented the maxim's liability insurance made available by the nuclear pools.
There has been no clear legislative history indicating Congressional interest in including property insurance in the amount available "for liability insurance provided by large reactor operator licensees.
As the February 19. 1980 letter
?
- c-t% General Counsel' states:
4A When the ' secondary layer' of retrospective premiums was developed in 1974-1975, this matter was closely being studied by the Congress.
Congress did not amend Subsection 170b. as to primary insurance, nor did it require the Comission to modify its regulations. We can find no authority in the Act or our Regulations which would allow the Comission to take into account other types of insurance in determining the amount of liability insurance available." -
Liability insurance provided by the insurance pools is furnished on a voluntary basis. The Cocnission i
has no authority to compel the insurance pools to increase their liability capacity or to require the f _g pools to transfer part of the propertyr pacuy to ca liability coverage. The staff is of the opinion that if the Congress had intended for subsection 170b. to include other kinds of insurance in the detemination of the " maximum amount available" then that subsection would have been so modified.
a/
JCASEReport, No. 296, 85th Congress, 1st Session, May 9, 1957, p. 10.
OF F lCE >...................
I SURNAVE>......................................>..................
oaTe>;...................
..................J...................-..................................
NPC F ORY 318 16-77 W U. S. G OV E A NM E N T P RIN TIN G O F F.i.E 1977-237-025
. Therefore, the staff believes that 10 CFP[140.ll(a)(4) is consistent with the requirements of the Price-Anderson Act and recomends that the Comission deny the petition for rule naking.
Reconnendation:
That the Commission:
(1) Approve publication of a Federal Recister (Attachment "B") notice that would deny the petition for rule making; (2) Note that a letter (Attachment "C") will be sent to the Public Citizen Litigation Group infonning them of the denial.
(3) Note that a letter (Attachment "D") will be sent to the appropriate Congressional subcommittees informing them of the denial, Coordination: The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal obj ection.
j..
r.. ; 33 E. C M i
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
Attachment "A" Abstracts of Coments and Staff Response Attachment "S" Federal Recister notice Attachment "C" Draf t letter to Public Citizen Litigation Group Attachment *D" Draft letter to Congressional subcomittees Distribution:
IDinitz Reading UFB Reading UFB Files Central Files NRR NRR EDO EGCase HRDenton WDircks 9/ /80 9/ /80 9/
/80 2.q%Hlc!
....m.F.(.........N R.R : U..FB...........N R R.:.U F B t.A..... ELD M.q[,,
EE8J p CEF f CE >
18 QtWeb DNash JSaltzman
[l f
...D.Mu.l..l.e r.........R.V.. 1] m.
o
....g.
............g...
.......g.7...
suRN ve
,...................r.......................................
NRC f O AV 318 16-77' W u. S. GOV E RNM E NT PRINTIN G C5 F f CE A977.237-025
ATTACHMENT *A" ABSTRACTS OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSE 1.
Burt C. Proom, American Nuclear Insurers and Ambrose Kelly, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters "The Congress has been aware that other insurance, in addition to liability insurance for the nuclear energy hazard is necessary...
Thus, the Congress never intended that the amounts of workers' compensation insurance, general liability insurance... and other types of insurance... be considered by the NRC in determining the amount of liability insurance available from private sources as financial protection... Congress directed the NRC by the amendment made to Section 170b in December 1975, that in determining the maximum amount of liability insurance available from private sources it include private liability insurance made available under the industry retrospective rating plan.
Had the Congress believed that other kinds of insurance were to be included in the NRC's determination, the law would have so stated."
STAFF Resp 0NSE h 8.drx < b d [e M e 7
fbn
&n sm a-/'s "
t i
Attachment "A" ena x-awA n
L2[Q 'I
/LLle,mML
/
~ (f fr6dm '
2 2.
Hubert H. Nexon, Commonwealth Edison "The Price-Anderson Act from its inception has dealt only with the amount of liability insurance available from private sources...
All the Act requires is that utilities buy the liability insurance that is made available...
The history confirms that the NRC has no authority to take into account other types of insurance in determining how much liability insurance is available."
STAFF RESPONSE _None.M 3.
Mr. Eddleman, private citizen "Why should ratepayers pay for Price-Anderson premiums.
I think the NRC should require that all nuclear insurance... should be liability insurance paid for by power company stockholders, not ratepayers."
STAFF RESPONSE Comments are not considered pertinent to the issues presented in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Attachment "A"
. 4.
Peter D. Lederer, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York "It is clear that Congress did not intend that the capacity used for property insurance be included as part of the ' amount availa5' '
for liability insurance.
We agree with the Commission's General Counsel that the subsequent legislative history does not indicate any Congressional dissatisfaction with the Commission's implementation of the Act. There is no general mechanism available under our laws to compel any insurance company to sell a form of insurance it does not seek to...
The Commission has no power to create one."
NM M'
STAFF RESPONSE he 5.
Daniel E. Bensing, Washington Legal Foundation "A careful analysis of the current capacity of the insurance industry to meet the needs of the nuclear operators (at reasonable cost) indicates that the statutory mandate is being complied with under the current NRC regulations. The PCLG petition fails to recognize that the nuclear insurance pools cannot arbitrarily allocate capacity between property and liability coverage as directed by a federal regulatory agency. They can only provide the coverage private Attachment "A" underwriters are willing to accept. Under current market conditions,
$160 million is the maximum amount of coverage available at reasonable market rates and conditions; no change in NRC regulations is necessary."
I
~+b b STAFF RESPONSE None 6.
T. G. Woods, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company "The nuclear liability insurance available from the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is the maximum amount available from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable tenns. The amount of nuclear liability insurance available is now $160 million.
In the area of nuclear lianility insurance, there is $510 million coverage from the insurance industry and the utilities, with an additional
$50 millian of government indemnity. There is no validity to assign the current property insurance to the liability area."
STAFF RESPONSE MMM6bM 7.
Carl Walske, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
"The amount of financial protection required by statute is expressed as the ' amount of liability insurance available from private sources...'
Attachment "A" Yet, there has been no indication in statutory language or legislative history that Congress inanded the amount of property insurance being offered to have any impact on the amount of liability insurance which licensees were required to maintain.
Moreover, in 1975 Congress specifically enlarged the definition of maximum amount of liability insurance... Had Congress intended that other kinds of available insurance should also be included in the enlargement, it would surely have said so when focusing on that issue."
STAFF RESPONSE Heer M 8.
William M. Chamberlain, California Energy Comission "The NRC should increase tie ' primary layer' financial protection by:
(1) requiring nuclear reactor licensees to offer to pay higher premiums in order to obtain greater amounts of private insurance coverage; (2) requiring each licensee to maintain separate financial protection for each nuclear facility; (3) requiring each licensee to provide additional financial protection by means of private contractual indemnities or by subjecting a portion of its assets to liability that might arise from a nuclear incident; (4) requiring increased financial protection for away-from-reactor spent fuel storage facilities, and (5) removing the investigative and legal Attachment "A" expenses of licensees and insurers from the coverage afforded by the primary layer insurance policies.
The NRC General Counsel's view that the Price-Anderson Act does not require any increase in the required amount of financial protection is based upon his conclusion that the Congress has not indicated its dis-satisfaction with NRC's approach.
It would be impossible of course, for Congress to exercise detailed oversight on every aspect of each of the hundreds... of programs.....
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has in the past used this ' Congressional inaction' rationale to upheld actions of the AEC or NRC that have appeared to be contrary to federal statute...
This rationale is inapplicable to the NRC's financial protection requirements..."
STAFF RESPONSE Since the enactment of the Price-Anderson Act, Congress has been very familiar with all aspects of its implementation.
During the last modification and extension of the Act in 1974 and 1975, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy held comprehensive hearings on the Act.
The bill extending the Act, now Public Law 94-197, was vigorously debated on the floors of both the Senate and the House.
It, as well as the bill extending the Act in 1965, continued to require financial protection equal to the maximum amount of liability insurance available through private sources.
Finally, the Commission informs the various Congressional subcommittees concerned with nuclear regulation of all matters relating to Price-Anderson.
Hence the Congress could act if dissatisfied with the Commission's implementation of the financial protection levels mandated in the Act.
Attachment "A" 9.
Travis J. Bowden, Alabama Power
" Inasmuch as insurance covering physical damage to property and extra expense of replacement power covers different risks, it is not appropriate to combine such coverage with liability insurance required of pe sor > to operate large consnercial nuclear power pl ants. Accordingly, the $160 million of liability insurance provided by the nuclear insurance pools is the maximum amount available."
[b M M
STAFF RESPONSE J4ent
- 10. Morris K. Udall, Congressman "In response to the notice published in the Federal Register, I am writing to urge you to connence a rule-making procedure to investigate the possibility of amending your regulations to financial protection requirements for nuclear facilities.'
STAFF RESPONSE For the reasons given in the Corcmission paper, the staff believes the PCLG petition for rule making should be denied and a rule making proceeding not be commenced.
Attachment "A" 11.
W. G. Counsil, Northeast Utilities "The existence of property insurance available in the amount of
$300 million has no bearing on whether individual insurers making up the insurance ~ pool would be able to increase the amount of liability insurance they would te.derwrite, absent the property insurance. As the General Counsel also points out, insurance must be available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms.
There is no indication that any additional liability insurance is available which can meet those criteria and the statutory requirements."
STAFF RESPONSE J6ae. [
dwb &
Attachment "A"
ATTACFNENT "B"
[7590-01]-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 10 CFR PART 140
[ Docket No. PRM-140-2]
Public Citizen Litigation Group Petition for Rule Making AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
J ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rule Making.
SUMMRY: The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is hereby denying a petition for rule making (PRM-140-2) submitted by the Public Citizen Litigation Group in a letter cent t& the General Counsel of the Comission MG
~
srt December 20, 1979. The petition requested that the Comission amend its regulations relating to " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," 10 CFR Part 140 to increase the amount of liability insurance reoutred of persons licensed to operate large comercial nuclear power plants.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ira Dinitz, Utility Finance Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Telephone (301)492-8562.
Attachment "B" OFFICE >
s u R N a u t >
....-------r-------------------------------------
c 4TE *,-....--------------.-------.-------.-
N R C F OR Y 318 i4 7 7i 1lt U. S. GOV E RNM E NT P R f N TIN G O F F 6CE 1977-23 7-025
. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 22, 1980, the Comission published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (45 FR 26973) requesting public coment on a letter dated December 20, 1979 which was sent to the General Counsel of the Comission by the Public Citizen Litigation Group (PCLG). The letter requested that the Comission amend 10 CFR[140.ll(a)(4) of its regulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 Mw(e) or more frcr: $160 million to $460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection. The Comission directed that the letter be treated as a petition for rule making.
Pertinent portions of the General Counsel's response were also published.
i PCLG suggests that the nuclear insurance industry should be required to combine the 5300 million in property insurance that it sells to reactor operators with the $160 million in primary liability insurance it provides to utilities under the Price-Anderson Act (Act) to offer a combined level of liability insurance totaling $460 million.
Eleven coment letters were received.
Both the petition and the coments are available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
The eight coments received from utilities, trade groups or associations, and from the insurance pools disagree with the petitioner's arguments Attachment "B" Oc F'CE >
sunuve>;..............................................................................................
=- i l
I N A C 5 O n v 318 ' f - 7 7 1lt u. S. GOV E RNV E N T P A & TIN G 0 5 F IC E 19 77-2 3 7-025
. that the availability of $300 million in property insurance indicates that the $160 million prescribed by the Comission is not the "naximum amount available" required by the Act.
The ninth coment letter requested that the Comission institute a rule making proceeding to increase the required financial protection amount.
The tenth cocment letter did not address any of the issues presented in the petition and was not considered by the Comission. The final letter, submitted by a state energy comission, addressed a number of different p#c.; err.s relating to the Price-Anderson Act, but only one corment specifically related to the petition. The commenter states that the Cornission should not rely on the legislative history of the Act which indicates no dissatisfaction by Congress with the insurance program now in effect for not including property insurance as part of financial protection. The Commission does not agree with this cocnenter's statement.
First, since the enactment of the Price-Anderson Act, Congress has closely followed IN 7 i
f the Comission's implementation of the Acy including specifically the setting of the financial protection level.
Second, the Comission continues to infom the appropke Congressional subcommittees concerned with nuclear power of significant matters relating to Price-Anderson, Hence, Congressy could act if[ & a d issatisfied with the Cornission's imple-mentation of the financial protection levels mandated in the Act.
Attactnent ' B
I OF FICE >
I suRoyE...................
me*;...................
' A C 5 0 R M 31 E t & 7 7 -
- U. S. GOVE RNVENT PRINTING OF FICE 1977-237-025 t
Based on an evaluation of the comaents received and for the reasons set forth below, the Connission concludes that 10 CFF 140.11(a)(4) is consistent with the requirements of the Price-Anderson Act. Accordingly, the petition for rule making t,as-been denied.
Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
j
, p,
$2210, sW that "The anount of financial protection required shall be tne amount of liability insurance available from private sources...
provided, that for facilities designed for producing substantial amounts of electricity and having a rated capacity of 100.000 electrical kilowatts or more, the amount of financial protec. tion required shall be the raximum amount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable tentts from private s ou rc es...
(emphasis added) As the General Counsel's February 19, 1950 letter to the petitioner states, NRC regulations implanenting Subsection 1705. of the Price-Anderson Act have historically adopted the amount provided by the nuclear liability insurance pools as the raximum amount available from private sources at reasonable cost and on reasonable tenns. The pools increased the amount of liability insurance available in January,1979 fron $140 million to its present level of $160 million.
--Wr-ther,10 CFRh40.ll(a)(4) requires comnercial operating reactor licensees to maintain primary financial protection of $160 million.
The Price-Anderson Act has been forrally reviewed and extended twice over the last twenty years by the Congress and Congress has exercised I
I eraics>j..................5.................................................
.. p,,................
I sus u w >,............................................................................
i DUE>l..................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
GCF AY 31E16?7
@ U. 5. GO V E A NM E N T P RIN TIN G O E F IC E 1917-237-025 1
_5 continuous oversight over the Commission's implementation of the Price-Anderson Act.
In two comprehensive studies of the Price-Anderson Act 3
vm" pr+pered by the AEC staff in June, 1965 and January, 1974, the staff specifically described the method used by the Comission in detentining the level of required financial protection.-1/ The study on " Issues of Financial Protection in Nuclear Activities." December,1973, prepared by the Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Columbia University also described the implementation of the Price-Anderson Act.-2/
In the original l
5 enactment of the Price-Anderson Act, Congress recognized the difference between liability and property insurance and indicated that only liability insurance should be used in setting the level of financial protection.
In the report of the Joint Co:m11ttee on Atomic Energy reporting out the 1957 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which became the Price-Anderson Act, the Cc.mittee stated:
4Because of the magnitude of insuring reactors, the insurance companies joined together in pools.
The insurance field has been traditionally developed by stock companies and by mutual companies.
These two types of companies, in turn, are split between those companies which insure against third-party liability (casualty companies) and those companies which issue property insurance on the reactor facility itself.
These four segments of the insurance companies each formed their own pools to issue atomic insurance policies. The stock companies have two pools.
One is the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association (NELIA) and the other the
,1f Selected Materials on Atonic Energy Indemnity and Insurance hegislation, Joint Corrittee on Atomic Energy Print, March 1974, pp. 4 and 372.
2/
id. at 78.
[d 5. l.., r..I OF F ICE >
SVRNAME>
.---w----------
DATE>,...................
N H C F O R M 318 IG 7 7 '
W U. S. GOVE RNME NT F RINTING O F F ICE 1977-237-025 Nuclear Energy Property Insurance Association (fiEPIA).
To the extent that the latter merely insures the reactor and its buildings it is not concerned with the financial protection which is required under the statute.
(emphasisadded)_3]
Reports of the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy for the 1965 and 1975 extensions of the Price-Anderson Act continued to equate the required level of financial protection with that dollar amount that represented l
the maximum liability insurance made available by the nuclear pools.
There has been no clear legislative history indicating Congressional interest in including property insurance in the amount available "for liability insurance" provided by large reactor operator licensees. As the February 19, 1980 letter from the General Counsel states:
Vnen the ' secondary layer' of retrospective premiums was developed in 1974-1975, this matter was closely being studied by the Congress.
Congress did not amend Subsection 170b. as to primary insurance, nor did it require the Commission to modify its regulations.
We can find no authority in the Act or our Regulations which would allow the Comission to take into account other types of insurance in determining the amount of liability insurance available.*
Liability insurance provided by the insurance pools is furnished on a voluntary basis. The Comission has no authority to compel the insurance pools to increase their liability capacity or to require the pools to transfer part of the property loss capacity to liability coverage. The 3]
JCAE Report, fio. 295, 85th Congress, 1st Session, May 9, 1957, p. 10.
OF FICE >
vnent.. - -.... ".. ".......
E Attac SURNAME >.---........-.-....4........-....................---..-.......-----.........
OATE>,...................,.................
N P C F O R M 318 (fr 7 7, g y, S. GOVE RNMENT F RINTING OF FICE 1977-237-025
. Comission believes that if the Congress had intended subsection 170b.
Cwn u%p of the Atomic Energy Act or Jw Comission regulations to tac 4mfa other g
f insurance in the determination of the " maximum amount available,"-
u.
-s
- _. u_.., -
then that subsection would have been so modified.
j In view of the foregoing, the Comission dentes the petition for rule making filed by PCLG on December 20, 1979.
A copy of the Cornission's letter of denial is available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, h, Washington, DC.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY ComISSION Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Comission Dated at Washington, DC, this day of 1980.
Attachment "C" OFF+CE >
n SU AN AME >
j i
1 QATE>l.........
NRC rOuv 318 tG77 W L. S. GOV E RNYE NT PRINTING CE F ICE 1977-237-C25
ATTACHMEhT "C" Public Citizen Litigation Group ATTN: Mr. William B. Schultz Mr. Alan B. Morrison Suite 700 2000 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Gentlemen:
j This is in regard to your request to have the Comission amend 10 CFR Part 140.ll(a)(4) as contained in your letter of Deceraber 20, 1979.
After careful review and consideration of your petition and based on an evaluation of the coments received in response to a Federal Register notice (45 FR 26773), the Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission has denied the petition for rule making for the reasons set forth in the attached Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, i
i John 7.,ld 6strte-L
/ Chairman v.
Enclosure:
Federal Register notice Attachment "C
-......---..-...--e.....-.----.......d....----.--......-.
OF FiCE >
SURNAMF>
OATE>,...................,.................,
NRC F ORM 318 16 77'
@ U. S. GOVE RNM ENT PR eNTING OF F ICE 1977-237-025
xa
/.
.W ~
'K
~ ~
3. gr ATTACif4ENT "D" The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcoranittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear 14r. Chaiman:
4 On April 22, 1980, the Cotuission published a Notice in the Federal Register (45 FR 26973) requesting public cocnent on a petition for rule 4
making sent to the General Counsel of the Comission on December 20, 1979 by the Public Citizen 1.itigation Group. The petition requested that the Conrnission amend 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) of its re9ulations to increase the amount of primary financial protection required of persons licensed to operate reactors with a rated capacity of 100 N(e) or more from $150 million to $460 million plus the amount available as secondary financial protection.
Eleven connent. letters were received on the G
~
(N s.-
- o c. s
/
u.
petition. After careful consideration and evaluation of the cornents received, the Comission has denied the petition for rule making.
Attached for your information is a copy of a Notice to be published in the Federal Recister which sets forth the reasons for the denial.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Federal Register notice r*,.... a u.. o.....
v..
" tee ~aririhir iTirT6FTd;WirdirTeYisri sini v6r---
- - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l SURNAME >
ouE>,...........................................................................4..."..."............................
Attachment D N RC 5 0RM 31E (6 7 7-
- U. S. GOVE RNM E NT P RIN TING OF FICE 1977-237-025
l t
1 Identical Letters sent to:
J The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chaiman Subcomittee on Energy and Power i
Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce United States House of Representatives l
Washington, DC 20515 cc: Rep. Clarence J. Brown The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chaiman Subcomittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Coccittee on Government Operations l
United States House of Representatives l
Washington, DC 20515 I
cc:
Rep. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
i The Honorable Gary Hart, Chairman l
Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation l
Comittee on Environment and Public Works l
United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc:
Sen. Alan Simpson i
l 1
i I
i l
i Attachment "D" 08isCE >,___________,,,___________,____,____,_____,__,__,,____ _,__,,,_,________ _____,,.,______
I l
SU"'"b - _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0*'Ek'________________.__________
m.cs;,em=m m os_ o.-
~
~
Cate:
in/?n/en Originator:
tiRR:Dinitz ECO No.
7 s :t E00 RCUT*NG SLIP Incoming Cate:
- e c
(
e n
- vvau o u uu dJ u unl a iLTICN:
Thru Line - Commissioner Action SU3 JECT:
Summary Sheet (Commissioner Action) For The Commissioners fm Denton thru ED0 re PETITION FOR RULE MAKING FRCM PUBLIC CITIZEN LT IGATION GRCUP CN REQUIRED LEVELS CF FINANCIAL PROTECTION CCNCURRENCES RECEIVED:
ELD "urray 10/9 lGC NRR Case for Centon 10/17 SD CON
~
AE00 "h pl[ Nr
~
AC3 COMEENTS:
/ / Admin. check sJA&;V fu
~
m' i c Re,
P' g V
pr 3
f )l~faA. f i/"
y' Y
E g/
E' f
u
. J'f
."Jl&}s a'Q
- 2. Cornell (f f
'~ Q "
(0 "
(ck to / / Rehm
~
h
/
Cy Y4hkn
%~ lY/ l yN/
Y O' f
- 3. 01rc A
'l r
av p \\
>g
/
V
'p Back to /_/ Rehm U
f
[/ Cornell B[
f
- 4. Return to ACB f / Courier
/- T CCA - gng to attention bhl 0
Uca h L b 'g(g d h p\\ k Fcf fe tt