ML20005F852
| ML20005F852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1990 |
| From: | Cottle W SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AECM-90-0002, AECM-90-2, NUDOCS 9001170323 | |
| Download: ML20005F852 (4) | |
Text
.
NEEENAEGE, MC.
- a m. soom um= cm
,hT $ m January 8, 1990 l
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:- Document Control Desk l
l Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-29 SERI Comments on NRC Proposed Amendment to 10CFR Part 50.54(w)
AECM-90/0002 The following comments are being provided by System Energy Resources, Inc.
(SERI) regarding the proposed amendment to 10CFR50.54(w) provided by the November 6, 1989, Federal Register, for Stabilization and Decontamination Priority, Trusteeship Provisions, and Amount of Property Insurance Requirements. These comments also include SERI's consideration on the appropriate level of required insurance in view of inflation of-decontamination-and cleanup costs.
COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10CFR50.54(w)-
The four points of contention contained in-the petitioners' proposal and L
SERI's-comments regarding the proposed NRC amendment are a's follows:
o Clarification of the scope and timina of the stabilization process af ter an accident at a covered reactor We agree with the petitioners that the stabilization process should be defined and clarified in the rule. -It is thought _that the existing: priority on insurance proceeds, and because proceeds for.
the decontamination but'not stabilization are to be paid to an independent trustee, would cause confusion and unnecessary delays regarding when, to whom, and in what amounts proceeds for-stabilization should be paid.
Along with the petitioners, we also j
believe-that the stabilization priority should not be invoked until ll the estimated cost of stabilization and decontamination ~ exceeds a threshold of $100 million and this priority should only. last for 30 days unless extended by the NRC.
f
{
t 9001170323 900108 PDR ADOCK 05000416 J
PDC GPAto GttF NUC1EAA STATCN l {
AEC90103/SNLICFLR - lao o m l
- oesc"MS N m l mm'e A Mdh $wh (We CWxn
.j,-
Page 2
. In _the proposed rule, the $100 million threshold was accepted; the proposed 30-day stabilization period priority was-extended to a 60-day priority on insurance proceeds; and the petitioners' eaamples of stabilization action were modified somewhat by adding maintenance of sub-criticality.
The modifications are appropriate and we are in agreement with this proposed amendment, o
Clarification of procedures by which the NRC determines and approves expenditures of funds necessary for decontamination and cleanup Consistent with.the petitioners' proposal, language was adopted for post-accident cleanup plans, in order that the unplanned insurance proceeds'may be used for activities other than-those defined as e
stabilization and decontamination priority activities.
Early access to these-funds would help licensees to better cope with any adverse financial affects of the accident and would reduce the likelihood that a licensee's financial hardship would have an adverse impact on the protection of the public.
We are in agreement with this proposed amendment.
o A change in the terminology of the required insurance from
" property" insurance to " decontamination liability" insurance-In order to insulate.the_ decontamination priority insurance proceeds from indenture provisions and because all nuclear property insurers are now willing to offer hybrid policies; the proposal was adopted to require insurance that clearly states.that any proceeds must be payable first for stabilization of the reactor and next for
-l decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site.
l We are in agreement with this proposed amendment, o
Rescission of the provision that proceeds of the required insurance to be paid to an independent trustee We agree with the petitioners that the trustee provision is unworkable, unnecessary and counterproductive.
The requirement of a trustee added further burden to an already complex process.
Although^the Commission retained the authority to impose such requirements in individual cases, if warranted, the NRC proposal to eliminate, at~1 east ~ temporarily,-the trustee requirement is appropriate.
AEC90103/SNLICFLR - 2
AECM-90/0002 Page 3 m
COMMENTS _REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF REQUIRED INSURANCE-In addition to comments regarding the proposed amendment, the NRC also requested comments regarding the appropriate level of. indexing of the required amount of insurance.
The NRC indicates that in the 1987 rulemaking, it had no effective means of determining future cost of.
accident stabilization, decontamination,-and cleanup other than by periodic updates of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory study from which the current $1.06 billion requirement was derived.
The NRC solicitation for comments continues'with suggestions that a mechanism similar to the one used in its final decommissioning regulationc may be appropriate for accident cleanup inflation.
A significant component of the mechanism's formula would be reactor size and type.
Additionally, in its Regulatory Analysis, the NRC states, "Although the effect of the formula, if developed and adopted, would increase the required amount of insurance cost to licensees, there should be little impact on insurance cost to licensees because almost all licensees buy the maximum amount of insurance available." We believe that the $1.06 billion presently required is as appropriate as any calculation generated by formulas, including reactor size and type.
The adequacy of the $1.06 billion would have to be studied by running many accident scenarios and consequences of-these would have to be developed, cost assigned and mitigation plans produced, in addition to methods for inflation indexing.
It is quite probable that each reactor would require a different levei of insurance, based on this assessment.
Additionally, the question of whether the indexing method should be similar to the method used in the decommissioning rule (10CFR50.75(c)(2)) appears arbitrary as decommissioning costs and accident cleanup costs are not strictly equivalent.
The financial impact statement made in the Regulatory. Analysis may presently be true, as most licensees do purchase all available capacity.
However, for various reasons companies may.not carry all that is available in the future.
This comment suggests that utilities will always purchase all capacity offered by the insurers, which indicated the insurers would determine how much capacity is adequate.
This would force 1
utilities into taking the maximum coverage offered and would no longer allow them to make the decision as to whether increases in limits were economical, reasonable, etc.
In summary, our comments are that we are in agreement with'the proposed amendments as written, and'believe that the present requirement of $1.06 billion is appropriate and-there is no need to create a mechanism for establishing base requirement amounts or escalation factors.
SERI appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed 10CFR50.54(w) amendment and requests NRC consideration of these comments in the final rulemaking.
Yours truly, 0-JGC:amm W2.,
'cc:
(See Next Page)
J UTT'Coryteu.
AEC90103/SNLICFLR - 3 L
q
_i AECM-90/0002-
]
Page 4 cc: Mr. D. C. Hintz Mr. T. H. Cloninger Mr. R. B. McGehee Mr. N. S. Reynolds Mr.. H. L. Thomas Mr. H. O. Christensen Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter i
Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. L. L. Kintner, Project Manager.
Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B20 Washington, D.C.
20555 t
i i
AEC90103/SNLICFLR - 4
- .