ML20042F632
| ML20042F632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR9137, RULE-PRM-50-54 PRM-50-54, NUDOCS 9005090173 | |
| Download: ML20042F632 (6) | |
Text
'
DOCKET NUMBER CETITION RULE PRM 84-5/
\\sGo (ssneows7 rW
[7 D-01) &
7,
~j ee NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D1 sh Ng. ;y, 3 C 10 CFR Part 50
[ Docket No. PRM-50-54]
hN 5# lb #
PUBLIC CITIZEN; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
' bi AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
SUMMARY
The Comission is publishing for public coment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated November 22, 1989, which was filed with the Commission by Public Citizen.
The petition was docketed by the Comission on December 19, 1989, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-54.
The petitioner requests that the Comission promulgate rules governing the licensing of independent power producers (IPPs)-to construct or operate commercial nuclear power reactors. The petitioner also requests that these rules include specific criteria for financial qualifications for an IPP seeking a construction permit or an operating license for a comercial nuclear power-reactor. -
DATES:
Submit comments by (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
g50gl73900603 ~
50-54 PDR 4)3 M
d p5
2 ADDRESSES: All persons who desire to submit written comments concerning the petition for rulemaking should send their comments to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver coments to the One White Flint North Building,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services. Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
The petition and copies of coments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services. Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:
301-492-7758 or Toll Free:
I 800-368-5642.-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.
Petitioner Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy group founded in 1971 to address a broad range of consumer and environmental issues.
1 j
l
r
, !!. Licensing of Independent Power Producers (IPPs)
The petitioner believes that there is a growing movement towards non-utility IPPs owning, constructing and/or operating nuclear reactors.
The petitioner cites as an example, the Quadrex Corporation of California, an engineering firm, that the petitioner states is considering leasing the uncompleted Bellefonte nuclear power plant from the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The petitioner asserts that other engineering firms have expressed an interest in constructing and operating nuclear power plants as IPPs.
Further, the petitioner states that "...there are.no NRC regulhtions specifically addressing the licensing of IPPs or the transfer of licenses to IPPs.
There is, therefore, a need for the NRC to expressly address the licensing of IPPs in its regulations.
This includes both the application for a new construction permit or operating license as well as for the acquisition of an existing license from another license."
The petitioner states that all licensees of commercial nuclear power plants are presently regulated utilities.
The petitioner believes that NRC
_ regulations.for financial. qualification of licensees for the construction and - - ~-'
l operation of these facilities assume that local, state or Federal regulatory bodies will ensure that nuclear licensees have sufficient funds to safely operate their facilities.
The petitioner states that "...[r]egulated utilities have defined and generally fixed markets for their electricity and usually are assured a set return on the a:nount of investment in plants which is included in their ratebase. However, IPPs must compete openly in the wholesale marketplace and 4
.J g
4-i may not have a steady supply of customers.
Consequently, while their rates may be set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), if IPPs fail to sell all the electricity, they may not make a profit.
Therefore, the long-term
)
financial stability of an IPP is less certain than that of 'a regulated utility, l
and may go out of business more easily." Thepetitionerassertsthat"...[t]his potentially precarious financial position may adversely affect the accrual of decommissioning funds, the promptness of necessary maintenance and repairs, the payment of waste fees to the U.S Department of Energy (DOE), and the ability to pay funds in the event of an accident at any commercial nuclear plant as specified under the Price-Anderson Act, t
III. Criteria for Financial Qualifications The petitioner believes that specific financial qualifications should be L
made part of an IPP application for a license, the findings that the NRC i
must make before granting a license, and any licensing hearing or other proceeding, including a transfer of license proceeding.
The petitioner believes the IPP's should be required to:
(1) "[e]stablish a procedure to ensure-that sufficient funds will be available for payment to the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
The NWPA currently requires licensees of commercial nuclear power plants to charge their customers one mil (0.1 cents) per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by those plants and to place the money into a fund managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the disposal of m
,-.v
..w--
e.
b.,.,
ew..g r w en
. radioactive waste. Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District i
of Columbia _(Consolidated Edison Co. of New York. Inc. v United States Department'of Energy, 870F.2d 694. March 17, 1989) recently ruled that the amount to be collected for the fund must account for electricity lost in transmission or consumed on site." Some acceptable procedures suggested by the petitioner that may be developed for payment to the Nuclear Waste Fund
"... include an insurance, surety bond, or pre-payment into the fund at the time of each refueling for the amount of electricity expected to be generated."
(2)
"[e]stablish a mechanism to assure that the money which the Price-Anderson Act requires licensees to pay in the event of an accident at any comercial nuclear plant...would be available wher needed." The petitioner asserts that this could be done by requiring either pre-payment into an external fund or by an insurance or surety bond method. The petitioner believes that "...[g)iven the utilities' status as regulated monopolies, state and Federal agencies can work to help ensure that utilities are able to raise the necessary funds through other regulated operations if called upon to do so.
The financial status of IPPs, however, is likely to be more tenuousrand added precautions should be taken to ensure their ability to meet the requirements l
of the Price-Anderson Act."
(3) provide pre-payment "...into an external fund for the cost of i
decomissioning the reactor, or demonstrate the absolute assurance by a financial institution that sufficient funds will be available for decomissioning.
Current licensees are allowed to demonstrate financial
5e F
ea-J 8
- l i
I assurance by these two methods as well as by the establishment of an external
{
trust into which the licensee makes annual payments during the life of the license."
l The petitioner states that "...[t]he reason for limiting IPPs to pre-payment i
and insurance or surety bond methods is that there is a greater risk that any
~
IPP may go out of business before the license is scheduled to be terminated.
Accordingly, these methods best guarantee that there will be sufficient funds ~
for decomissioning the plant.."
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this
. day of 1990.
For the Nuclear (Regulatory Comission.
ad g -
s Samuel J. Chilk, 1
Secretary of the Commission.
e
_g,,,
+-
4 ea 4
f M
h
+,,
e r-
~
~e