ML19323F470
| ML19323F470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1980 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Morrison A, Schultz W PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323F449 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-140-2 NUDOCS 8005290057 | |
| Download: ML19323F470 (5) | |
Text
.__
. jh4 880tg#
UNITED STATES 0
NUCLEAR RE!ULATORY COMMISSION g
g d
g WASHWGTON, D. C. 20566 civ f
, February 19, 1980 j
William B. Schultz Alan B. Morrison Public Citizen Litigation Group Suite 700 2000 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Sirs:
This responds to your letter dated. December 20, 1979, concerning "NRC Regulations on Insurance Requirements Under the Price-Anderson Act."
Specifically, your letter calls.
into question the validity of the NRC regulation imple-menting 42 U.S.C. 2210(b), namely, 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4).
This regulation was last amended on May 1, 1979. See 44 Fed.
Reg. 20632 (April 6, 1979).
The current level specified in the regulation as the " maximum amount of liability insurance available" required for large power reactors is $160 million.
NRC regulations implementing Section 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 terms. (See the. Federal Register citations following 10 CFR 140.11, beginning in 1960).
During this twenty-year period, the Price-Anderson Act has twice been thoroughly re-examined by Congress, which was aware of the Commission's implementation of this section.
We have been unable to locate any legislative history indicating Congressional dissatisfaction with the insurance program then in effect.
Particularly during the 1974-1975 review, when the '.' secondary layer" of retrospective premiums was developed, this matter was under close Congressional scrutiny. Nevertheless, Congress did not amend Section 170b as to primary insurance, nor did it require the Commission to alter its regulations implementing that section.
8 0052 90 Odiy?.
5 h
r.
William B. Schultz 2
[i
?
?_
It is therefore our view that 10 CFR 140.11 was validly I
promulgated by the Commission.
Your letter, however, i
presents certain policy issues which deserve more detailed 5
consideration. As a general matter, any increase in the e
primary financial protection layer will lessen the amount of i
government indemnity and could, depending on the extent of J
the increase and the size of the secondary financial pro-g tection layer, increase.the amount of funds available to pay
[
public liability claims.
This is a desirable objective.
I You have requested that the Commission amend its regulations t
in this area and we are therefore referring your letter the i
the Executive Director for Operations for appropriate action.
l (See 10 CFR 2.802, 44 Fed. Reg. 61320).
Whether the facts E
i now justify an increase in the primary financial protection layer can be appropriately explored in the rulemaking context.
?
E Sincerely,-
q P_ ALO, i
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel i
?
G a
i l
l 1
l 9
i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/[ Docket No. PRM-50-26:/
William K. Watson Filing of Petition for Rulemaking o
AGENCY:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Publication of Petition for Rulemaking from William K. Watson
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing for public comment, as a petition for rulemaking, a motion filed before the Commission on January 6, 1980, by William K. Watson. This petition, which has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-26, requests that the Commission amend 10. CFR Part 50,
" Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to provide that an applicant for a license for a facilicy which will store certain quantities of nuclear products be required to design the facility to protect against release to the atmosphere of there products if the facility is attacked by nuclear weapons detonated at ground level and having an equivalent yield of up to 5 megatons.
AEE DATE:
Comment period expires 15 ggg ADDRESSES: A copy of the petition for rulemaking. is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC.
A copy of the. petition may be obtained by writing to the Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commi3sion, Washington, DC, 20555.
All persons who desire to ' submit written comments or suggestions concerning the petition for rulemaking should send their comments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
t o,
- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Felten, Director, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The pertinent paragraph of the Comission's regulations,10 CFR ! ISO.13, now reads as follows:
An applicant for a license to construct and operate a production or utilization facility, or for an amendment to such license, is not required to provide for design features or other measures for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of (a) attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, directect against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign government or other person, or (b) use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S. defense activities.
The petitioner requests that this paragraph be replaced by the following wording:
An applicant for a license to construct a production or utilization facility, or for an amendment to such license, wherein it is contemplated there will be stored anywhere within the facility nuclear prcducts with a radioactive half life of one year or more in quantities in excess of 100,000 Curies, shall be required to design the facility in such a manner that the nuclear products cannot be released to the atmosphere by the use of a nuclear weapon with an equivalent yield of less than five (5) megatons which is detonated at ground level at the geographical location of any structures at the facility which contain the aforesaid quantities of radioactive material.
r.
O n
-..t.
The petitioner alleges that nuclear armed cruise missiles are now able with reasonable probability to directly impact a building, pond, or storage tank and disseminate the contents over a wide region.
In support of his contentions, the petitioner attaches an article from an unidentified publica-tion, entitled "Why Nuclear Power Should go Underground". This article refers to Government-sponsored reports which, according to the article, indicate that a direct hit by nuclear weapons in the 20- to 100- kiloton range could smash the reactor containment vessel and release its contents.
I Dated at Washington, D. C., this day of For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 4
w