ML20006A548

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Stabilization & Decontamination Priority,Trusteeship Provisions & Amount of Property Insurance Requirements.

ML20006A548
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
FRN-54FR46624, RULE-PR-50 54FR46624-00007, 54FR46624-7, AD19-2-07, AD19-2-7, AECM-90-0002, AECM-90-2, NUDOCS 9001290091
Download: ML20006A548 (4)

Text

- -- -~ - - - - - - -

p3 ,_

. . i

-:G L

~

JDOCKET NUMBER BD f() IL

?~ ' PROPOSED Rul.E 03

> = cocutico (s yERK9n.--naarm yp hese ooyoien, Jaramry 8,1990 so ami 23 a9:39

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comeission OFilC(r DOCK ilNGOF SECRETARY

& SEHVICI.

Mail. Station P1-137 BRANCH t Washington, D.C. 20l55 <

Attention: Document Control Desk-

. Gent 1emen:

SUBJECT:

Grand Gulf Nuclear-Station Unit 1: .

Docket No. 50-416 .!

License.No NPF-29 SERI Comments on NRC Proposed Amendmentto10CFRPart50.54(w)-

L AECM-gD/0002 The.following comments are being provided by system Ener

(SERI) regarding the proposed amendment to 10CPR50.54(w)gy provided by theResources, Inc.

November 6 198g. Federal Register, for Stabilisation and Decontamination '

1

, 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.

CODNINTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMEN 0 MENT TO 10CFR50.54(w) -

The four points.of contentien contained in the petitioners' proposal and-

, SERI's comments regarding.tte proposed NRC amendment are as follows:. <

o -- C'arification of the sc;g g_g u igina of the stabilisation nrocess .

- after an accident at a f,,gy,ggc reactor 1 1

-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 '

'l regarding stabilization-s when,hould be paid.to Alongwhen, andpetitioners, with the in what amounts we also.proceeds for believe that the stab (11 stion priority should not be invoked.until the estimated cost of stab 111:stion and decontamination exceeds a threshold of $100 million and this priority should only last for 30 days unless extended by the NRC.

9001290091 900100 46624 PDR

@R 54 AEC90103/SNLICFLR - l'o *

• l $ E E lmo w e: S nas w ue cem Qg

<k

- ...f.-, J........_,..., . . . , _ . . . . . , . _ - . . , . , . . ~ . _ , _ . . _ _ _ , . _ _

: =. - - -'

' - ~ - - - - = - - - - - - - "

, 0. n: e:n P. 3/ 5

- @o  :

[, AECM-90/0002

, .Page

• i .

In the proposed rule,-the $100 eillion threshold was accepted;' the proposed 30-day stab 1112ation period priority was extended to a 60-day priority on insurance proceeds; and tie petitioners _' examples-  :

of stabilization action were modified somewhat by adding maintenance of sub-crittcality.

The modifications are appropriate and we are in agreement with this proposed amendment, ,

o Clarification of crocedures b.y which the NRC datormines and approves exoenditures of funds nectnLry for decontaminat' on and cleanus '

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 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 itkelihood L that a licensee's financial hardship would have an adverse impact on the protection of the public. ,

zWe are in agreement with this proposed amendment, o A chance in the terminoloc.y of the renuirod innuranco from "crocerty" insurance to "decontim_nat< on tabi' ity" "nsurance In order to insulate the decontamination priority insurance proceeds i

-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 stabt11 stion of'the reactor and next for decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site.

L We are in agreement with'this proposed amendment.

L o Rescissica of the orovision that croceeds of the reoutred insurance l to be oatd to an indenenclent trustgi 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 least-temporarily, the trustee requirement is appropriate.

AEC90103/$NLICFLR - 2

.r.._ _ _ - - . ._ .- _ __.-- _ _ _ _ _. ._._.. _..._ _ __.. _ ___

.----- --==L=- - --

swJc; n ' 6;M

. ,< Al b .  ;

E' AECM-90/0002 Page 3 COMENTS REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL 0F REQUIRED INSURANCE-In addition to comments regarding the proposed amendment, the NRC also requested comments required amount regarding the appropriate level of indexing of the 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 Northwe,st Laboratory study from which the j current $1.06 billion requirement was derived.

The NRC solicitation for comments continues with suggestions that a mechanism stallar to the one used in itscleanup accident final decommissioning regulations may be appropriate for inflation. A s'gnificant component of the mechanism's formula would be reactor size and tyse. Additionally in its Regulatory Analysis, the NRC states, "Altnough 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 tie maximum amount of  !

insurance available." We believe that the $1.06 billion presently

! required is as appropriate as any calculation generated by formulas, i including reactor size and type. The adequacy of the 41.06 billion would L 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 indextng. It is quite probable that each reactor would require a different level of insurance, l

based on this assessment. Additionatly, the question of whether the

" indexing method should be similar to the method used in the decommissioning rule (10CFR50.75 decommissioning costs and acciden(c)(2)) appears arbitrary as equivalent. t clearup costs are not strictly p- The financial-impact statement made in the Regulatory Analysis may presently be true, as most licensees do purchase all available capacity, f However, for various reasons companies may not carry all that is ty available 1n the future. This commert suggests that utilities will.

y always' purchase all capacity cffered by tlie insurers, which indicated the n

insurers would determine how much capacity is adequate. This woulo force b utilities into taking the maximum coverage offered and would no longer u

allow them to economical, make tie etc.

reasonable, decision as te whether increases in limits were Jnsummary,ourcommentsarethatwe-areinagreementwiththeproposed 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 opsortunity to comment on the proposed 10CFR50.54Cw amendment and requests NRC consideration of these comments in the final )

rulemaking.

Yours truly, JGC:amm  % *-

cet (See Next Page) b

")WTCOTT%8n AEC90103/5NLICFLR - 3

~ ~

sWT w

u:n P. 5/ 5 ABCM-90/0008 Page 4 cc: Mr. D. C. Hints Mr. T. H.'Cloninger

.Mr. R. 8. McGehoe Mr. N. 8.'Reynolds Mr. H. L. Thomas Mr. H. O. Christensen Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter Re U.gional Administrator S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region !!

101 Marietta St., W.W.

Atlante, Georgia 3032) Suite 2900 Project Manager Mr.

OfficeL.ofL. Kintner, Reactor Regulation Nuclear U.S. Neelear Regulatory Commission Mail 5 top 14820 Washington,D.C. 20555 AEC90103/SNLICFLR - 4

. .