ML20031G493

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Joint Motion to Defer Consideration of Contention 25 Re Applicant Financial Qualifications.Proposed Rulemaking Would Amend NRC Regulations Governing Financial Qualifications Review.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20031G493
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  
Issue date: 10/19/1981
From: Ellis J, Reynolds N
Citizens Association for Sound Energy, DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8110220481
Download: ML20031G493 (15)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ii DCT 20 hi0:22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD HCE OF SECRET /JY ff:xrCTfjg & sew.o;; i In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al. ) 50- 4 p%m [ m ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) to Station, Units 1 and 2) ) . e' ,/t 1 %f y s 2 8 1987 JOINT MOTION OF APPLICANTS 8 p ""' g g g* AND CASE TO DEFER CONSIDERATION 0F CONTENTION 25 Texcs Utilities Generating Co., et al. (Applican Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") to defer considera-tion of Contention 25, concerning the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, pending the outcome of an ongoing rulemaking which may limit or obviate considera-tion of Contention 25. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently publishad in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would, inter alia, remove from consideration in NRC licensing proceed-ings the issue of an electric utility applicant's financial qualifications to operate a nuclear power reactor, or in the alternative to retain those requirements for operating license applicants to the extent that they require submission of infor-mation concerning the costs of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition (i.e., o pso 9110220481 81101'9 b# l {DRA3GCK05000445 i PDR ---,----.n

. decommissioning costs). The Commission is also considering amend-ing its regulations to require power reactor licensees to maintain the maximum amount of commercially available on-site property damage insurance, or an equivalent amount of protection (e.g., letter of credit, bond, or self insurance), from the time that the Commission first permits ownership, possession, and storage of special nuclear material at the site of the nuclear reactor. 46 Fed. Reg. 41786. In view of that rulemaking, Applicants and CASE believe that the most efficient use of the time and resources of all parties and the Board would be made if Contention 25 were deferred from consideration at the hearings scheduled to commence on December 2, 1981 I. BACKGROUND On June 16, 1980, the Board issued its " Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference" in which it admitted Contention 25 to this proceeding, as follows: Contention 25. Th: requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended,10 C.F.R. 250.57 (a)(4) and 10 C.F.R. (Part) 50 Appendix C have not been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility. The Board has now scheduled a hearing to commence on December 2, 1981, at which the issue raised in Contention 25 is to be addressed. Scheduling Order, July 23, 1981. If consideration of Contention 25 is not dc2 erred, CASE and , Applicants and the NRC Staff will of course expend significant

$ amounto of time and resources in the near future preparing for hearing on Contention 25, including preparation of possible motions for summary disposition and of testimony, trial briefs and exhibits. Additional time will be spent during the hearings in order to address Contention 25. Proposed Rulemaking: On Augus t 18, 1981, the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would amend its regulations governing financial qualifications reviews of, inter alia, utility applicants for nuclear power reactor operating licenses. 46 Fed. Reg. 41786. The rulemaking stems from a directive in Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et (Seabrcok Station, U'its 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978) al. n that the NRC Staff initiate a rulemaking proceeding in order to reevaluate the financial qualifications issue. 7 NRC at 20. In particular, the Staff was to examine the relationship between the financial qualifications of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 applicants and their ability to safely construct and operate production and utilization facilities. Consequantly, soon after the Seabrook decision, the Commission published notice of its proposed study and requested comments from interested persons on the issue. 43 Fed. Reg. 22373 (May 25,1978). The Commission has now " tentatively concluded that the present financial qualifica-tions review can appropriately be eliminated for electric utility applicants, which can be presumed to be able to meet the financial demands of constructing and operating nuclear power plants. As an alternative to entirely elimi-nating the present financial qutlification review, the 1 4 ,.-.._,_.,,,,,,_..-_,-,.,,,_mr .m._

4 Commission is considering retaining, at least as an interim rule, that portion of the current operating license review related to financing the permanent shutdown and maintenance of the facility in a safe condition. "The commission is considering the adoption of an interim rule which would require all licensees for operating power reactors to maintain the maximum amount of commercially I available on-site property damage insurance, or an equiva-l lent amount of protection...as an interim requirement until l the Commission has an opportunity to conduct a rulemaking to determine what level of prctection is necessary to cope with the on-site radiological hazards resulting from an accident." Interested persons have been invited to submit comments on the proposed rule by October 19, 1981 The Commission inteads upon promulgation of the final rule "to make it effective immediately upon publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2553(d)(1) since the rule is expected to significantly relieve the obligation of certain applicants with respect to information required for construction permits and operating licenses, and also to reduce the amount of unnecessary, time-consuming staff reviews and adjudicatory proceedings. In that regard, the Commission notes that the final rule, when effective, will be applied to ongoing licensing proceedings now pending and to issues or contentions therein." (46 Fed. Reg. at 41789; emphases added.) II. JOINT MOTION OF APPLICANTS AND CASE Applicants and CASE hereby move the Board to postoone con-sideration of Contention 25 pending completion of the financial qualifications rulemaking. That rulemaking likely will either eliminate Contention 25 from consideration in this case or will significantly alter the manner in which Contention 25 should be addressed in NRC licensing cases. In these circumstances, it would be wasteful of the time and resources of the parties and

k the Board to litigate Contention 25 at this time. The efficient conduct of this~ proceeding would be best served by postponing consideration of that contention until the rulemaking is completed. A. Efficient Conduct of This Proceeding Would Be Served By Postponing Consideration of Contention Z.5 Until Completion of the Financial Qualifications Rulemaking The proposed revisions to the Cc amission's financial qualifications regulations are clearly app?icable to this proceeding and to Contention 25. If promulgated as proposed, the new rule could eliminate the need to litigate Contention 25, which concerns the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, or at a minimum significantly alter the manner in which Contention 25 should be addressed in this proceeding. It appears that the rulemaking is on a schedule for com-pletion by the end of this year. Comments on the proposed l rule are to be submitted by October 19, 1981 The Commission is obviously anxious to eliminate unwarranted delays in licensing cases, and indications are that the Commission will press for early adoption of the proposed rule in its final form. If promulgated as proposed, the rule will apply to ongoing cases such as the Comanche Peak proceeding. In view of the scope and timing of the rulemaking, the time and resources of Applicants, CASE, the NRC Staff, and the Board that would be expended uselessly at and in, eparation for the hearing on Contention 25 will be saved if the Board grants the l l

. instant motion. Following promulgation of a final rule, the Board could entertain motions for addressing Contention 25 in a manner consistent with the rule. If for some reason tite rule-making is not completed in a timely fashion, the parties could move the Board to schedule Contention 25 for trial at a later time. B. Deferring Contention 25 Is Consistent With NRC Practice And Is Within the Board's Discretion. Recognizing the need to achieve administrative efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts, the Appeal Board years ago summarized the Commission's policy that licensing boards "should not accept in individual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission." Potomac Electric Power Company (D.ouglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1~ and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974). However, because the financial qualifi-cations rulemaking was not formally initiated until August of 1981 (even though the Staff had been studyir3 the issue since 1978), Contention 25 was not precluded by the Douglas Point rationale when the Board issued its June 16, 1980 Order admitting contentions. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Contention 25 raises issues which are now being addressed in a generic rulemaking. Since the litigation of Contention 25 likely will be signifi-cantly altered upon promulgation of the final rule, it seems ' wholely proper and consistent with the concern for efficient

. utilization of NRC resources expressed in Douglas Point for the i Board to defer consideration of Contention 25 at this time. If the Commission does not adopt the proposed rule or a final Commission decision in the rulemaking is delayed, the Board can take appropriate action at that time. In the interim, the rights of all parties will be preserved. Of course, the Board has the authority to regulate the course of this proceeding and to schedule issues for hearing at its discret'on. See 10 C.F.R. 22.718 and 2.752.

Thus, the Board ha
ne authority to grant the relief requested.

In view of the prehearing schedule which requires filing of motions for summary disposition by October 29 and filing of testimony on November 23 and trial briefs on November 25, Applicants and CASE request expedited treatment of this motion. For the Board's convenience, we are attaching a copy of the Federal Register Proposed Rule. Respec u y submitted, l ) Nichoi Reynolds DEBEVQ E LIBERMAN 1200 S e eenth Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Counsel for Applicants 1 1 YJJfwW $.) g4anita Ellis, President CAS?. (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) I 1426 S. Polk Dallas Texas 75224 214/946-9446 214/941-1211, work, usually Tuesdays and Fridays only

I 41786 Proposed Rules red-i a i~ s ~ - Vol 46. No.159 ~ Tuesday. August 18,1981 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: Interested persons are qualifications review and findings contans notees to the put>t.c of the invited to submit written comments and required by 10 CFR 50.33(f) and other proposed issuance of rules and . suggestions on the proposal and/or the sections of 10 CFR Part 50 as to electric reWatons The purpose of mese noticee supporting value/ impact analysis to the utility applicants for construction sa ta gue interested persons an Secretary of th'e Commission. U.S. permits and operating licenses for sYoptIon tE final Nuclear Regulatory Commission. nuclear power plants, which are l-ng p to m Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention: utilization facilities licensed pursuant to Docketing and Service Branch. Single 10 CFR 50.21(b) and 50.22. or for copies of the value/ impact analysis may production facilities licensed pursuant 4 be obtained on request from Jim C to 10 CFR Part 50.The one possible NUCLEAR REGULATORY Petersen. Office of State Programs. U.S. exception to this propos'al may be that COf tt.tiSSION Nuclear Regulatory Commission.s. th'e Commission,in the alternative, will e Wa shington. D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-decide to retain at the operating license 10 CFR Part 50 492-98&3). Copies of the value/ impact stage that portion of the financial . analysis and of comments received bY qualifications review and findings that Firuncial Qualifications; Domestic the Commission rnay be examined in the relate to the costs for permanent Licensing of Production and Utilization Commission's Public Document Room at shutdown and maintenance of the Fac!!itles 1717 H Street NW, Washington. D.C. facility in a sare condition (i.e. AcENev: Nuclear Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMr. Tion CONTACT: . decommissioning costs).lf the Commission. Jim C. Petersen. Office of State Commission decides to retain the

  • AeTio+c Propos' d rule.

Pmgrams. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory financial qualifications requirements e Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 relating 1o decommissioning costs, the SUf.*M ART. The Nuclear Regulatory - (telephone 301.-192-9883). Tule will serve as an interirc rule until Commission is considering amending its SUPPt.EMENTARY WFORMATIO*c completion of a future rulemaking on regulations concerning requirements for decommissioning that wiu consider the I Back """d finzncial qualifications review and 8 costs of decommissioning and the ( findings for electric utility applii. ants A. The Stature and the Pmposed Rule. necessary financial assurances. At that' ( that are applying for permits or licenses Section 182a of the Atomic EnerEy Act time, the Commission will. If necessary, for ;iroduction or utilization facilities: of 1954. as amended. u U.S.C. 2232a again amend the financial qualifications (1) To eliminate entirely these (the "Act"), provides in pertinent part: regulations to make them consistent requirements for construction permit Each application for a license hereunder with the nnel decommissioning applicants; and either shall be in writing and shall specifically state regulations adopted. The proposed rule (2)(i) To also eli:ninate entirely these such information es the Commission. by rul' also met es certain editorial requirtments for operating license 8egulation. may determine to be recessory applicants: or to decide such of the rechn.xlandfinancial modifications to i 50.33(f) to improve its (2)(iijl,o retain these requirements for quclifications of the opplicant the character clarity, make conforming changea to c of the applicant. the citizenship of the 150.40(b) and i 50.57(a)(4). and operating license applicants to the applicant. or any other qualifications of the

  • liminates Appendix C to 10 CFR Part e

extent they require submission of information concerning the costa of appheam as the Commission may deem

50. In addition, a new provision appropriate for the license.... The discussed in III D., below, would permanendy shutting down the facility Commission may at any time aner the filing require power reactor licensees to and maintaming it in a safe condition of the original aprlication, amt befme the maintain the maximum amount of (i.e. decommissioning costs).

'*j*0"0I

  • C*rj'4

{ commercially avaUable on. site property The Commission is also cons,dering i Commission to determine whether the damage insurance, or an equivalent emending its regula.ons to require application shall be granted or denied er amount of protection (e.g. letter of power reactor bcensees to maintain the whether a license should be modified or credit, bond or selfinsurance), from the maximum amount of cornmettially revoked.... point in time that the Commission first available on. site property damage insurance, or an equivalent amount of (emphasis added). In NewEngland permits ownership. possession and protection (e.g, letter of credit. bond. or co,fjgf,3,, gy,f,,7p,ffyffon y,ggg,. storage of special nuclear metenal at the selfinsurance). from the time that the 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978), cfg sub nom. site of the nuclear reactor. - Comr.ission first permits ownership. Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshir, 'Ile Commission believes that its possession. and storage of special (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2). CLI-existing financial qualifications review nuclacr matenal at the site of the 78-1. 7 NRC 1 (1978). the U.S. Court of has done litde to identify substantial nucleu reactor. Appeals for the First Circuit stated that health and safety concerns at nuclear the Act **gives the NRC complete power plants. However, there are OATrs: Comment period expires October discretion *o decide what finandal . matters important to safety which may 19.1981. Comments received after qualifications are appropriate." 582 F.2d be affected by financial considerations. October 19,1981. will be considered ifit at 93. Consequendy, the Commission requests is practical to do so, but assurances of As will be discussed below. it is the comment regarding the type of NRC consideration cannot be givec except as. NRC's present proposal. in exercising review that would focus effectively on to comments received oo or before this the discretion conferred by Sectioo ta2a. financial considerations that might have. da te-to eliminate current financial an adverse impact on safety. t c

e ~ rederal Regis!Ir / Vcl. 48. No.159 / Tuesday. August 18. 1981 / Proposed RulIs 41737 i - B. The Commission's Seabmok study of the financial qualifications of nuclear facilities is ca.ntingent upon Decision. In Public Service Company of lasse (43 FR 2:373. Afay 25.1978).ne the finsncialqualifications of the New Hampshire. et of. (Seabrook notic. requested interested members of applicant It stated tiu:t insufficient Stction. Units 1 and 2). Cll-78-1. 7 NRC the public to submit comments on the ' ~ financing durmg construction could lead 1 [1978) (hereinafter "Seabrook"), the . issue and to propose specific changes to to the use'of substandard materials and Commission directed the staff "to the rules by July 24.1978. Seven sets of to costly. delays in construction. NCLC initiate a rulemaktng proceeding in, comments were received. Six of the. further suggested that NRC should which the factual legal. and policy submittals were from electric utillties. promulgate a regulation requiring that espects of the financial qualifications the Edison E!cetric Institute (EEI), and nuclear facilities constructed with a issue may be reexamined." 7 NRC at 20. law firms representing electric utilities. reasonable cost of financing and that

  • Specifically, the staff was to examine The seventh set of comments was from failing to do so may financially burden the relationship between the financial the National Consumer I.aw Center. Inc.

the applicant and the applicant's owners qoslificatiens of Part 50 applicants and The following is a summary of the and customers. licensees and their ability to safely relevant points made in these comments. .II. Separate Treatment of ccnstruct and operate production and ne i:111 ties, the EEI. and the law ' utilization facilities. Further. the staff firms recommended that the regulations Decommhsioning Costs wcs to prepare r, proposed rule to serv 2 be revised to substantially reduce the Ceneric study of the costs and 4s the basis for:nitiating the rulemaking scope of NRC's financial qualifications f nancial arrangements for described by the Commission m review especial!y as it applied to deqommissioning nuclear power plants. Seabmok. applicants whose rates for service.are

  • 11 *s to' "h" ""'I f' in its Seabmok decision. the either self. determined or are de'termined fas*been ad d cohe M be tno Commission first reviewed the statutory by state and/or federal regulatory I* 'subiect area separate from the more end regulatory basis leading up to the agencies.nese commenters generally' r utm.e financial qualificati ns issues present financial qualifications maintained that a history of successful requirements set forth in to CFR 50.33(f).

plant construction and operation that were discussed by the Comm,ss:on i Tha Commission observed that "[tJhis coupled with the legal requirements .in SeobmoE M ngard to history suggests that for established placed on economic regulators together decommisslordng costs. the NRC utilities with substantial operating constitute " reasonable assurance" that [ecently published two documents: records. close scrutiny of financial. adequate financing can be obtained (the Assuring the pvailability of Funds for qualifications was not viewed as presently-existing standsrd set forth in Deomnu,ssionmg yuclear Facilities" necessary to assure that financial i 50.33(f)). This group of commenters (WRW5% Rens,on 2. Octobu 1980) i considerations did not compromise fe-ther argued that " cutting-corners"in and " Draft Gener,c Environmental i safety."Id. at II.The Commission went construction or operation is not in the Impact Statement or. Decomm,ssioning i on to express its belief that financial self. interest of the utility. as it is of Nuclear Facilities;(NUREG-0586 qualifications of a regulated public imperative that a pla.: provide long-January 1981).The generic study of utility have less bearing on assuring term operation reliatly and safely in decommissiom,ng. including an safety in construction and operation accordance with NRC regulations.He applicant's financial ability to bear the costs t'.creof, and the publication of a than for other applicants, even though commenters said that the financial the Commission noted. in thg context of savings that could be achieved through proposed rule for comment are expected the present" reasonable assurance" "corncr-cutting" would be small to be completed by March 1982.The requirement of f 50.33[f) that merely compared to the sums required to Commission's treatment of being a regulated public utility wculd complete the project.The risk of decomrnhsioning and its costs as a not automatically satisfy i 50.33(f) as detection by NRC inspectors and separate matter is thus expected to lead spplied to a construction permit possible resulting legal action against to a final rule on this subject. It is also. spplication.The Commission stated: the utility were cited ac additional . expected that when the final policies While unexceptionalin the abstract. this disincentive s to violation of NRC*a and regulations are developed they will prnnosition is less coropelling in the case of a safety regulations. be imposed on all Part 50 lisensees, reg;tated public utality engaged in a One of the above commenters including the electric utility applicants construction project which is itself subject to expressed a preference for complete and licensees a,ffected by these high safety stanJards and ongoing elimination of the financial qualification proposed financial qualifications tn. abserEe of any dernonstrated direct findings as now required by the amendments. ~ connectinn between financial qualifications regulations. That commenter maintained As stated above the Comm_ssion is i and safety in the utility-either genera!!y or that a causal relationship between proposing a possible alternative to the l In this case in parGcular-we are left with the financhl r,ualifications and safety had elimination of the entire financial essentially speculative claims of the parties. not been demonstrated. rlualifics tions review presently required i /d. at 18. Finally, after characterizing the The National Consumer Iaw Center, by i 50.33(f) for electric utilities applying link between safety and financial Inc. (NCLC) commented that the existirig for operating licenses for nuclear power qualifications as " seemingly tenuous." regulation is inadequate in that it doe, plants.This alternative would retain the the Commission emphasized direct not require the filing of sufficient present financial qualifications review l approaches for assuring safety;"[t]he financialinformation to demonstiat,e and findings at the operating license i resulting limited usefulness of the fi ancial qualitkations for a stage as to the issue of decommissioning l financial qualifications inquiry ranstruction permit or an operating costs.Upon completion of the separate l underscores the importance of ongoing license. NCLC provided a detaikd list or rulemaking on the decommissioning

  • inspections of reactor construction types of financialinformation that issue, the Commission will re-examine proie et s." Id. a t 19.

should be required of applicants. NCLC the financial qualifications regulations C. Ecr//crPublic Comments: based its suggestion for NRC requiring and will, if necessary, further amend Following the Seabrook decision, the such information on the premise that them to conform to the final rule on NRC notified the public ofits generic safe.reliabk construction and operation decommissioning. r 1 1

41788 Tcdcral Regisler / Vol. 46. No.159 / Tuesday. August 18. 1981 / Proposed Rules Ill. Olber Basle Considerations and operating license review related to for operating power reactors to maintain Aspects of the Proposed Rule financing the permanent shutdown and the maximum amount of commercially maintenance of the facility in a safe available on site property damage A. Electric Utility and Other condition. Insurance, or an equivalent amount of Appliconts. With regard te the financial The Comm,ission proposes to retain its protection. %e proposed rule is qualifications issues as raised in current review under i 50.33(f) of intended to serve as an interim, Scobrook. the Commission continues to believe that technical reviews and 8pphcants for any prcduction or requirem'ent until the Commission has utilization facility license. i! such an opportunity to conduct a rulemaking inspection efforts are effective, direct apphcants are not electnc utilities to determine what level of protection is methods of discoved.g deDciencies that could affect the public health and safety. having either a regulated status or the necessary to cope with tl.e on site e ectn,rity to, set their own rates fore semce.%e i 50.33(f) finantial accident. While the vast majority of ado radiological hazards resulting from an While anafysis of financial qualifications has been viewed in the qualificatior.: review is also unchanged licensees for operating power reactors past as possibly an additional method of 85t producuon or utilization facilities currently maintain the maximum determining an applicant's ability to n t covered by i 50.21b or i 50.22.I.e. ~ available amount of such insurance,the satisfy safety requirements, experience medical utilization faci'ities. research Commission understands that some has failed to show a clear relationship and devel pment facilities, and itstin8 utilities do not buy the maximum between the NRC's review of an facilities. amount ar5d one utility (TVA) self-applicant's financial qualifications and dia.Mc Inf0*CISn M insuns for property losses. In view of the applicant's ability to safely construct Be Required. By this pmposed rule, the the substantial importance to the pubh,c and operate a nuclea power plant. Commission does not intend tawalve or health and safety of adequately cleaning As discussed abt.ve, such utilities are mHnguish Hs residual adorHy to rp nuclear accidents, the Commission is usually regulsted by state and/or require such edditionalinformation in proposing that such maximum insurance federaf economic regulatory egencies. Individual cases, as may be necessary-coverage be mandatory (1) for a and generally recover the costa of . r the Cornmission to determine construction permit he' der from the constructing generating facilities through whether en application should be po nt in time that the Commission first the ratemaking process, subject to the granted or den ed or whether a license permits ownership, possession and oversight of such state and/or federal should be modified or revoked. See, for storage of special nuclear material at the g agencies. As a resuj1. reasonage cosgs example, the fourth sentence of Section site of the nuclear reactor

  • and (2) for all necessary to rnect a utility s obligations 182a of the Atomic E.nergy* Act of 1954, holders of nuclear power plant operattng (including NRC. imposed safety as anwnded. S..larly, no ch,ange in the licenses. In other words, the insurance imi requirements) are normally recovered through this ratemaking process.See*

reg rd to the in n al u I fica on

    • "* "" E e g.. EPC v. Hope Natum/ Cos Co 320 review of non. utility applicants for Part earher construct on stages. Within 90 U.S. 591 (1944): Bluefield IVoter IVorks 50 licenses is proposed. In addition, an 8F8 8 phon of a hal
e..

andlmprovement Co. v. Ibblic Service exception to or waiver from the rule,if licensees w uld have to demonstrate to Commission of the Sto;e of IVest promulgated in final form. would be Virginia 269 U.S. 679 (1923). Rese possible to require the submission of P "' '"' N"" * * " e mmercially available on." site property isndmark court decisions established. financialinformation from a particular the principle that public utility electric utility applicant if special damage insurance r that they possess commissions are to establish a utility's circumstances are shown pursuant to 10 "" ' 9 " * ""I * * ""' # E " ' rsles such that all reasonable costs of CFR 2.758 in an Individual licensing requirement on construct,osed new De impact of this pmp serving the public may be recovered he aring. ion permit. assuming prudent management of the . C. Procticallmpacts. He proposed holders and on licensees for operating utihty. Derefore, one presumption tht rule wilh in normal circumstances, power reactors is expected to be underlies this p,oposed rule is that reduce the time and effort which the regulated electric utilities (or those able applicants. licensees,the NRC staff and relatively small in comparison to total to set their own rates) will be able to NRC adjudicatory boards devote to utility neources and the large consumer meet the costs for safe construction and reviewing the applicant's orlicenaea's base for a nuclear power plant.ne optration of a nuclearproduction or financial qualifications.ne proposed - current property damage insurance utilization facility.ne other rule aims at either reducing or premium for a two-unit sitt is presumption is that the more direct eliminating staff review in cases where approximately $1 million per year for methods of ensuring shty-inspection the applicant is an electric utility, maidrnum coverage with the premium and ertforcecient-wn! be reasonably presumed to be able to finance activities. for a one-unit site being proportionately effective in deterring any "cc ner-to be authorized under the permit or. les.For regulated utilities. insurance ' ~ cutting" and in remedying satety. license. costs and the costs of complying with problems. D. interim Bule Requiring Psoperty. NEC regulations are normally passed { ne Commission has tentatively Damot,e Insurance. At present, the through to consumers. All other utilities concluded that the present financial - Commission does not require licensees set their own rates and can pass such 1 qualifications review can appropriately to maintain property damage insurance, costs through to consumers at their ewn l t e eliminsted for electric utility. or its equivalent. Under its. discretion. l applicants, which can be presumed tote responsibilities to protect the public. IV. Proposed Application of the naal able to meet the financal demands of. health and safety, the Commission la Rula constructing and operatira nuclear concerned about the ability of a nuclear la summary, the Comm!rsion haa 8 , power plants. As an alternative to' -antirely eliminating the present financial. power plant licensee clean.up costs resulting from a nuclear-. tentatively concluded that adoption of qualification review, the Commission la 'r-lated accident.De Commission is' the proposed rule will substantially considering retaining. at least as an considering the adoption of aninterim reduce the effort of demonstrating interim rule, that portion of the current rule which would req lts alllleensees financial qualifications without reduc.ng / i s

Fed 2ral Registir / Vol. 46. No.159 / Tuesday, August 18. 1981 / Propcssd Rules 41789' the protection of the public health and small business found in Section 3 of the on financial qualifications described in esfety. If the proposed rule is Small Business Act.15 U.S.C. I 632. or - "paragraphe (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this ~ promulgated as a final rule,it is the within the Small Business Size section shall be required. nor shall any Commission's present intention to make Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121.' ' financial review be conducted. if the it effective immediately upon Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 'fplicant l's an electric utility applicans publicalion, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. for a license to construct or operate a i 553(d)(1) since the rule is expected to Pursuant to the provisic<ss of the production or utilization facility of the significantly relieve the obligation of Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Pub. typ! described in 150.21[b) or $ 50.22. certain applicants with respect to L 96-511). the NRC has made a (1)If the application is for a information required for construction preliminary determination that this construction permit. the applicant shall permits and operating licenses, and also proposed rule does not impose stew submit information that demonstrates to reduce the amount of unnecessary, information collection requirements. the applicant possesses or has time. consuming staff review and This proposed rule has nevertheless reasonable assurance of obtaining the adjudicatory proceedings. In that regard, been submitted to the Office of funds necessary to cover estimated the Commission notes that the final rule. Management and Budget for its construcilon costa and related fuel cycle when effective, will be applied to consideration of any potential or ne.w costa.The applicant shall submit engoing licensing proceedings now information collection requirements estimates of the total construction cost - pznding and to issues or contentions pursuant to Pub. L 96-511. of the facility and related fuel cycle thereir '. inion of ConcernedScienGts Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of costs, and shallindicate the source (s) of 1954, as amended the Energy J ..ded. funi!s 'to cover these costs.

v. AEC 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 4974).

In addition. the NRC neither intends Reorganization Act of1974, as s' men (ii)If the application is for an'. n:r expects that the proposed rule,if and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United operating license, the applicant shall and when finally effective, would affect States Code.' notice is hereby given that submit information that demonstrates the scope of any issues or contentions adoption of one of the two following the applicant possesses or has related to a cost / benefit analysis alternative amendments to 10 CFR Part reasonable assurance of obtaining the performed pursuant to the National So is contemplated. funds necessary to cover estimated Environmental Policy Act of1968, either operation costs for the period of the in pending or future licensing PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF license, plus the estimated costs of proceedings far nuclear power p!rnts PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION permanently shutting the facility down (utilization facilities under il 50.21[b] FACILITIES and maintaining it in a safe condition. and 50.221. Under NEPA. the issue is not The authority citation for Par' 50 The applicant shall submit estimates for t whether the applicant can demonstrate reads as follows: total annual operating costs for each oT reasonable assurance of covering Authority: Sees.103. St.161.182. ta3. te9. the first five years of operation of the certain projected costs-the Atom.ic 68 Stat. 936. 937. 948. 953. 954. 955. 956, as facility and estimates of the costs to Energy Act issue dealt with in the amended (42 U.S.C. 2133. 2134. 2201. 2232. permanently shut down the facility and proposed financial qualifications rule-2233. 22391: secs. 201. 202,206. 88 Stat.1243 maintain it in a safe condition.The Eut rather is merely what costs to the u44.1246 (42 U.S C. 5641. 5842. 584sl. unless applicant shall also Indicate the applicant of construction and opesating otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued sources (s) of funds to cover these costs. the plant are to be put into t)te cost. under sec.122. 68 stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). An application to renew or extend the brnefit balance. As is now the case, the Sections sow 50 81 also issued under sec. ruta of reason will continue to govern 164. 68 Stat. n4. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). term o7 an operating itense must y Sections so.too-so.to2 issued under sec. tes, include the same financialInformation the scope of what costs are to be included in the balance, and the e8 Stat. 955 [42 U.S C. 22361. For the purposes. as required in en application for an initial license. resulting determinations may still be the of sec.*23.6e Stat.958, as amer.ded(42 i U.S.C. 22731.150.41[il is sued uader sec.1611. (2) Except for electric utility subject of litigalion. Thus, financial 88 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(ill: il 50.70. 50.71 applicants for construction permits and qualifications would not ce, expected to and 50.7a issued under sec.161o. 66 Stat. 95o' operating licenses. each application for become an issue or contention m an as amended (42 U.S.C.2201(c). and the laws a construction permit or an operating NRC h,eentmg proceeding insofar as referred toin Appendices. NEPA might be mvolved. license submitted by a newly. formed Alternative 1-Eliminate Entirely the entity organized for the primary purpose Regtiatory Flexibility Certification FinancialQualifications Redew And of constructing or operating a facility (n accordance with the Regulatory Findings As To Electric Utilities That . must also include information showing: Flexibility Act of1980. 5 U.S.C. I 605(b). Are Applyin,g For Construction Perm,its (i) The legal and financial the Commission hereby certifies that And Operatmg Licenses For Production relationships it has or proposes to have this rule will not if promulgated.have a Or Utilization Facilities with its stockholders or owners; significant economic impact on a.

1. Paragraph (f) in 150.33 is revised to (ii) Their financial ability to meet any substantial number of small entities.The read as follows:

contractual obligation to such entity which they have incurred or propose to proposed rule reduces certain minor. 150.33 Contents of applications; general incur; and information collection requirements on information. the owners and operators of nuclear (iii) Any otherinformation considered power plants licensed pursuant to Each application shall state: necessar3 by the Commission to enable Section 103 and toth of the Atomic It to determine the applicant's financial (f)(1)Information sufficient to qualifications.' Energy Act of 1954. as amended. 42. U.S C. Il 2133,2134b.These electric demonstrate to the Commission the (3) Except for electric utility

  • utility companies are dominant in their financial qualifications of the applicant applicants for construction permits and service areas. Accordingly, there is no to carry out. in accordance with operating licenses. the Commission may significant economic impact. nor are regulations in this chapter, the activities request an established entity or newly-such owners and operators of nuclear for which the permit or license is sought. formed entity to submit additional or pow er plants within the definition of a provided, however, that no information. rnore detailed information respecting its

-m -,-.w--,,-.- ,-,w-, ,.nr-,,-v.,r ,.e,,,--- -,-m,,,,-,* ,,,.-,,---n.,-,-,--.-,.~nn-m--n -.~..,-,,r-., ~n m-..m--d,-----,-------.en--

k 11790 Federal Reglsict / Vol.' 46. No.159 / Tuesday. August 18. 1981 / Proposed Rules Imancial arrangements and status of possesses an equivalent er ount of estimates of the total construction cost funds if the Commission considers such protection covering such facility, of the facility and related fuel cycle 1 information appropriate.This may

5. Paragraph (a)[4) in i 50.57 is revised costs, and shallindicate the source (s) of include information regarding a to read as follows:

funds to cover these costs. !i (ii) lt th' 'EE '"i U i$ licensee's ab,ility to continue the conduct 50.57 Issuance of operating ficenses. - operating liccnse. the applicant a. hall of the activities authonzed by the license and to permanently shut down submit inforrnation that demonstrates the facility and maintain it in a safe (a) * *

  • the applicant possesses or has l

(4) The applicant is technically and reasonable assurance of obtainire the condition. financially qualified to engage in the funds necessary to cover estimated activities authorized by the operating operation costs for the period of the

2. Paragraph (b) in i 50.40 is revised to I cense in acc rdance with the license. plus the estimated costs of

. read as fo!!ows. regulations in this chapter.provided. permanently shutting the facility down common standards. however, that no finding of financial and maintaining it in a safe cendition. I l 50.40 qualifications shall be necessary for an The npplicant shall submit estimates of electric utility applicant for an operating total annual operating costs for each of (b)The applicantis technically and Heense f r a pr duction or utilization the first five years of operation of the financially qualified to engage in the facility of the type desenbed in facility and estimates of the costs to proposed a'ctivities in accordance with . permanently shut down the facility and i 50.21(b) or i 50.22. the regulation in this~ chapter.provided. montain it in a safe condition.%e however, that no consideration of ~ financial qualifications shall be

6. Part 50 is amended by removing -

applica nt shall also indicate the necessary for an electric utility Appendix C. source [s) of funds to cover these costs. An application to renew or extend the spplicant for a license for a production Appendix C-[Removedj or utilization facility of the type term of an operat,ng license must i Alternative 2-Elirninate The Present include the same financialinformation described in i 50.21(b) or 150.12. FinancialQualifications Resiew And as seguired in an application for an Findings As To Electric Utilities nat initial license.

3. A new paragraph (v)is added to Are Appl ing For Construction Fermits.

(iii)If the application is by an electric. 3 150.54 to read as follows: And Also Eliminata ne nnancial utility for a license to operate a i50.54 conditions of ticenses. Qualifications Review And Rndings At production or utilization facility of the ne Operating License Stage For Electric type described in i 50.21(b) or i 53.22. Mties, Except Retain The Portion Of information shall be submitted that (v) Each electric utility licensee under That Review And Findings That Relates demonstrates the applicant possesses or

  • this part for a production or utilization To Permanent Shutdown And has reasonable assurance of obtaining -

facility of the type described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 shall, within 90 days Mainte, nance Of The Facuity In A Safe the funds necessary to cover the Condition estimated costs of permanently shutting of the date this regulation becomes effective, have and maintain the

1. Paragraph (f) in i 50.33 is revised to down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition.The applicant shall maximum available amount of read as follows:

submit estimates of these costs and commercial on-site property damage insurance or demonstrale to the i 50.33 Contents of applications; general shall also indicate the source (s) of funds Inform 8 tion- - to be used to cover these costs. satis' action of the Commission that it possesses an equivalent amount of Each applcation shall state: (2) Except for electric utility applicants for construction permits and, protectica covering stich facility. operating licenses, each application for

4. A new paragraph (f)is added to (f)(1)Information sufficient to demonstrate to the Ccmmission the a construction permit or an operating i Si 35 to read as followr financial qualifications of the applicant license submitted by a newly-formed I 50.55 cMf!tions of constmetion to carry out. In accordance with the entity organized for the primary purpose Pen h regulations in this chapter, the activities of constructing or operating a facility for which the permit or license is sought, shall also include informa(ion showing-(f) Each electric stility that is a provided. however, no inferrration on (i) ne legal and financial construction permit helder under this financial qualifications descrfoed in relationships it has or proposes to have Part for a production or 6tilization paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this with its stockholders or owners:

facility of the type described in section shad be required, nor shall any (ii) ne financial ability of such I 50.21(b) or i 50.22 and wha ts also the financial review of the information stockholders or owners to meet any holder of a license under Pan 70 of this required by paragraphs (f)(1) (i) and (ii) contractual obligation to such entity chapter authorizing only ownerdip, be conducted if the applicant is an which they have locurred or propose to possession, and storage of special electric utility applicant for a license to incun and nuclear material at the site of the construct or operate a production or (iii) Any other information considered nuclear reactor for use as fuelin utilization facility of the type described necessary by the Commission to enable

  • operation of the nuclear reactor after in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22.

It to determine the applicant's financial issuance of an operating license under (i)If the apptication is for a qualifications. Part 50 of this chapter.shall.within 90 construction pec: nit. the applicant shall (3) ne Commission may request an 4 days of the date this regulatico becomes submit informaUon that demonstratea established entity or newly. formed effective, have and maintain the the applicant possesses or has entity to subrnit atelional or more maximum available amount of reasonsble assurance of obtaining the detailed informa' ion respecting its commercial on-site property damage Tunds necessary to cover estimated financial arrangements and status of i l Insurance or demonstrate to the ennstruction costs and related fuel cycle funds if the Commission considers sud2 satisfaction of the Com:nisalon that it coets.De applicant shall submit , information appropriate. His may t

Rd2ral R:gistIr / Vcl. 46. No.159 / Tuesday. August ~18.1981 / Propos:d Ruhs 41791 l Include infortnation regarding a maximuus available amount of ~ licenste's ability to continue the conduct commercial on. site property damage el the activities authorized by the insurance or demonstrate to the ~ lic:ns's and to permanently shut down satisfaction of the Commission that it the facility and maintain it in a safe pt,ssesses an equivalent amount of condition. protection covering such facility.

2. Paragraph (b) in i 50.40 is revised to.
5. Paragraph (a)(4) in i 50.57 is revised reid as follows:

to read as follows: ~ I50.40 Corr mon Standards. I50.57 lasuance of operath Scenses. ~ (b) The applicant is technically and (a) * *

  • f!n:ncially qualified to engage in the (4)The applicant is technically and proposed activities in accordance with financially qualified to engage inihe the regulations in this chapter.provided, activities authorized by the operating b: wever. that consideration of the license in accordance with the fin:ncial qualifications of an electric regulations in this chapter.provided.

utility applicant shall be made only in however, that a finding of financial tha c:se of an operating liceroe qualification shall be made only in ths. application for a production or case of an application to operate a-utiliz: tion facility of the type described production or utilization facility of the in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22. and shall be type described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 limitzd in such a case to consideration and shall be limited in such a case to the of an epplica.it's ability to provice the applicant's ability to provide the funds, funds, or to show that it has reasonable or to show that it has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds. kssura6ce of obta!rdng the funds, necessary to cover the estimated costs necessary to cover the estimated costs ' cf permanent shutdown and of permanent shutdown and maintenance of the facility in a safe maintenance of the facilityin a safe condition. condition.

3. A new paragraph (v)is added to
6. Part 50 is amended by removing I 50.54 to read as follows:

Appendix C. Mo.54 Conditions of ricenses. APPeodix C--{ Removed] Dated at Washington. D.C. this t3th day of -(v) Each electric utility licensee under August.1981. 'his part for a production or util)zation For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. lacility of the type described in John C. Hoyle. I 50.21(b) or i 50.22 shall. within 90 days 3,,jng s,,,,,,7j, cf the date this regulation becomes p w r.wr.eu as. ) effective, have and ma:ntain the siumo coot too.es-u maximu;n available er.munt of commercial or.-site property damage insurznce or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that it possesses an equivalent amnunt of protection cosering such facility.

4. A new paragraph (f)is added to I 50.* - :o read as follows:

1 50.55 C :nditions of construction ptrmit s. (f) Each electric utility that is a construction per,mit holder under this Part for a production or utilization facility of the type described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 and who is also the holder of a license under Part 70 of this chapter authorizing only ownership, possession, and storage of special nuclear material at the site of the nut! car reactor for use as faelin operatiois of the nuclear reactor after issuance of an operating license under Part 50 of this chapter. shall, within 90 l days of the date this regulation becomes effective, have and maintain the c

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICRNSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445

COMPANY, et al.

) 50-446 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ' Joint Motion of Applicants and CASE to Defer Consideration of Contention 25" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid

  • this 19th Day of October, f981:
  • Marshall E.

Miller, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Denneth A. McCollom Licensing Appeal Panel Dean, Division of Engineering, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Archirecture and Technology Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D.C. 20555 Stillwate r, Oklahoma 74074

  • Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
  • Dr.

Richard Cole, Member Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

  • By hand delivery
. David J.

Priester, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens Assistant Attorney General Docketing & Service Branch Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission i P.O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C. 20555 Capitol Station ~ Austin, Texas 78711 J. Marshall Gilmore, Esq. 1060 W. Pipeline Road Mrs. Juanita Ellis Hurst, Texas 76053 President, CASE 1 I 1426 South Polk Street Dalla, Texas 75224 a \\ / A jf (} Nichc J as S. Reynolds cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq. . ~. ---}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20031G493&oldid=4596658"