ML20050A387

Advises That All Parties Notified of Final rule,10CFR51.53 (C),Precluding Contentions on Need for Power or Alternative Energy Sources in OL Proceedings.Rule Should Serve as Basis for Sua Sponte Dismissal of Contention 3

ML20050A387
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	03/31/1982
From:	Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Clark H, Ferguson G, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20050A388	List: ML20050A387 ML20050A391
References
FRN-46FR41786, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50 ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204010244
Download: ML20050A387 (5)

Text

,

c-c March 31,1982 Hugh L. Clark, Esq., Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge P.O. Box 127A School of Engineering Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Howard U91versity 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a

Washington, D.C. 20555 RECEmyg g

.g ISSA b In the Matter of 3' a'N$$7?%

Illinois Power Company, et al.

t S

(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)

Doc 87 8 Docket No. 50-461 OL N

g

/

Dear Administrative Judges:

On this date, the undersigned has notified all parties to the captioned proceeding),of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's final rule (10 C.F.R. 9 51.53(c enclosure 1) precluding contentions on need for power or alternative energy sources in operating license hearings.

Subsequent to notifying all parties of the above rule, the undersigned received notice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's issuance of a final rule eliminating requirements for financial qualifications review and findings.

(Enclosure 2). This rule, which will be published in the Federal Register, should serve as a basis for the Licensing Board's sua sponte dismissal of Intervenor's Admitted Contention 3.

Sincerely, DISTRIBUTION Goddard g

Gutierrez Reis J. Miller / 340 Richard J. Goddard J.H. Williams Counsel for NRC Staff C. Grimes 340 Cunningham/Murray

Enclosures:

As Stated Christenbury/Scinto FF (2) cc:

(w/ enclosures)

NRC Docket File:

Prairie Alliance William van Susteren, Esq. (PDR/LPDR)

Philip L. Willman, Esq.

Mr. Herbert H. Livermore Jeff Urish Reed Neuman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Jan L. Kodner, Esq.

Gary N. Wright Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel 0FC :0 ELD gc/ :0 ELD

s'_______

NAME :Godda rd/d kw : EJRe i s [ f : ____ _______ :: __ __ ____

3 DATE :03/ */82

03/ 3/82 9

8204010244 820331 PDR ADOCK 05000461 0

PDR

12NO Tederal Register / Vol. 47. No. 59 / Triday, March 26, 1932 / Rules and Reguistions

urettut,nAnf INr$RM ATION

Notice is i135.14(b)(5)(ii), (111) cnd (v) cnd (f)(2),

ErrtcTrVE CATr:Apr0 26,1982.

hereby given of the amendment of the 35.25 and 35.31(d) are issued under sec.

FoR rVRTHER INrORMATION CONTACT:

Nuclear Regulatory Comm!ssion's 1810,68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.

Darrel A.Nash. Office of State regulation, ilumen Uses of Byproduct 2201(o)).

Programs. U.S. Nuc!est Regulatory hfaterial,"10 CB Part 35.

Seetion 35.100 oI10 CFR Part 35 lis'ts H 35.4. 35.12,35.14. 35.31 and 3s.100 Commisalon, Weshington. D.C. 20555.

iAmended!

. Telephone:(301)492cesa2.

I groups of medical uses of byproduct material that have sirnilar requiremente

2. Remove the authority citations suretrutxTARY INFORMATIOst for user training and experience, following { { 35.4, 35.12,35.14, 35.31.

facilities and equipment, and radiation 35.100, the authority citation following Badtground of the Rule

~, -

safety procedures.ne urpose of this the undsalgnated center heading reading On August 3,1981, the Comm!selon groupingis to reduce a ministrative "Special Requirements for Teletherapy pub!!shed in the Federal Register (46 FR I

costs by eliminating the need for Licensees," and the authority citation

. 39440) for public comment, proposed licensees to seek an amendment to their following the undesignated center amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 ofits license each time they wish to use an heading reading "htisadministration regulations. As discussed in the I

additionalradio harmaceuticalin a Reports and Records.

statement of consideraHons which group for which hey are licensed. As

3. Section 35.100 is amended by.

accompanied the proposed rule the new radiopharmaceuticals, sources, removing the word "and'* following devices, and uses are developed and paragraph (c)(4)(xi), and adding a new - Purpose of these amendments is to approved by FDA, they are added to the paragraph (c)[4)(xil) to read as follows: ' avoid unnecessary consideration of appropriate group in i 35.100.%e FDA issues that are not likely to tilt the cost-g 35.100 schedule A--Groupe of medical benefit balance by effectively has recently approved a "New Drug me of byproduct metalaL eliminating need for power and App!! cation" for a reagent kit that is used to prepare the alternative energy source lasues from ra diopharmaceutical, technetium-99m IC} * *

• consideration at the operating license labeled disofenin, and the use of this (4) * * *,

stage.In accordance with the reagent kit is hereby added to Group III.

(x11) Disofenin: anel Commission's NEPA responsibilities, the As described in NRC's medical policy need for power and alternative energy statement that was pub!!shed in the Dated at Bethesda, MD, this ath day of sources are resolved in the construction Federal Register on February 9,1979 (44 February 1981.

permit proceeding.%e Commission FR 8242), the NRC relies on ITA for For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

stated its tentative conclusion that while approval of safety and effectiveness of William J. Dircks, there is no diminution of the importance i

radioactive drugs.%e Commission has Secutive Directorfor Operations.

of these issues at the construction found that good cause exists for omitting pi on. as.ans ru.a s-as-a= aes i permit stage, the situation is such that at notice of proposed rulemaking and

,u.,a cooe y, n_as the time of the operatinglicense I

public procedure thereon, because it proceeding the plant would be needed to

?

would be contrary to the public interest either meet increased energy needs or to delay the use of this FDA. approved 10 CFR Part 51 replace older less economical generating product by grou medicallicensees.

Since the amen ent relieves licensees Need for Power and Afte:Sative capacity and that no viable alternatives p

IY ed nu h e from restrictions under regulation 3 Energy Issues in Operating Ucense comp

, )

)d currently in efrect,it may become Proceed!ngs gg effective without the customary 30-day AceNcv: Nuclear Regulatory operating license. Past experience has Commission.

shown this to be the case. In addition.

F Punuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy ACTION: Final rule.

this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alternative is shown to be I

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, suuuAw.The Commission is amending marginally environmentally superior in and section 553 of Title 5 of the United

^

Its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 comparison to operation of a nuclear States Code, the following amendments to Title 10 Chapter I, Code of Federal oLicensing and Regulatory Policy and facility because of the economic E

6 Regulations, Part 35 are published as a Procedures,for Environmental advantage which operation of nuclear Pr tection, to r ovide that, for National power plants has over av,allable fossil i

document subject to codification.

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) generating plants. An exception to the 3

g

[

j PART 35-HUMAN USES OF purposes, need for power and rule would be made if,in a particular BYPRODUCT MATERIAL alternative energy source issues will not case, special circumstances are shown fo nucfear we p$ ants.In h' g"on re8"'

1.The authority citation for Part 351s rocee revised to read as follows:

addition, these issues need not be I

Authority: Sees. 81,161,182.183. 68 Stat.

addressed by operating license Comments were invited particularly 935.948, 953. 954,es amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, applicants in environmental reports to on the following issm:

(

2201. 2232. 2233); sec. 2ol. 88 Stat.1242 as the NRC, nor by the staffin (1) Whether two articles, one by.

amended by pub. L 94-79,89 Stat. 413 (42 environmental impact atatements (EIS),

Amory and flunter Lovins and the other

(.

U.S C. 5841).

In operating license proceedings. The by Amory Lovins,IIunter Lovins, and For the purposes of sec. 223,68 Stat. 958, purpose of these amendments is to leonard Ross, correctly state that a as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); Il 35.2, avoid unnecessary consideration of mixture of conservation and alternative 35.14 (b), (e) and (f),35.21(a),35.22(a).

Issues that are not likely to tilt the cost.

sources would usually cost less than

[

q 35.24. and 35.31 (b) and (c) are issued benefit balance.This rule affects operating a nuclear plant, and therefore under sec.161b,68 Stat 948, as arplicants for operating licenses for a newly completed nuclear plant should I

n amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and nuclear power plants.

be written o!I; and

[

[

ENCLOSullE 1 j

.]_"9' "4 1]' e eM N O eE 7 3 ) 7,3,

"',9'5' "J,

' '* { 7, v;, K 7, D.i" 1

] p

~p

,.,'*7'

'"i

Federal Regieter / Vol. 47 No. L9 / I'rlday, March 20,1982/ Rules and Regulations' 12M1 0

p) Whether the rule.if adopted, plants are lower cost to operate than commenters stated that the should be applied to ongoing licensing fossil plants.81f conservation lowers requirements for raising these issues proceedings.

demand. then utility companies tale the under i 2.758 as wTitten in the Fifty.three letters of public comment most expensive operating plants off.line Supplementary Information should be were received on the proposed rule.

first.%us a completed nudear plant modified because they believe the Twenty-nine commenters supported the would be used as a substitute foeless

. example would defeat the purpose of the proposed rule change, and twenty-four economicalgenerating capacity.

rulemaking by makingit as easy to were opposed.Here were a few

%erefore, the Commission condades, require these issues to be treated as le relatively minor modificatlons proposed that studles such as those c!!ed in the the case under cunent rules..

for the promulgation of the final rule.

proposed rule should be relled on to Response.-%e Commisslon does not ne more significant comments and the reach conc!nstons on comparative agree. Section U58(c) requires the -

Commission responses are given below.

energy costs, rather than the 1 mins-petitioning party to make a prima fade Ross artides.

showing that application of the Comments and Responses Comments-Ten commenters regulation to a particular aspect of the Comment-Eight commenters, all of addressed the tesue of whether the rule proceedina would not serve the whom favored the rule change, change. If adopted, should apply to purposes for which the rule was -

expressed views on the artides by ongoing IIcensing proceedings then adopted.%Is is a much strictee Lovins and Ross which state that pending and to tesues or contentions standard then the current requirements conservation plus other energy forms therein.%ree commenters who opposed for raising need for power and usually result in lower cost than the rule commented that changing altemative energy sources in OL operation of a nuclear plant.8 %e conditions since the CP should wanant proceedings, comments were directed to varfons not making the rule applicable to Commente-Four commenten noted aspects of these artides which in the pending OL proceedings.He that no mention was made of whether commenters views contain errors and commenters who favor the proposed need for power and altemative energy omissions. Significant deficiendes.

rule made comments which can be sources needed to be addressed 1n mentioned were that the analysis is far summarized as arguing that the reasons.

NRC's operating license environmental from complete. it contains questionable for eliminating the review at the OL impact statements (EIS's).%e costs figures, falls to discuss the rate at, stage were no less valid for ongoing expressed concem was that silence on '

which conservation and alternative cases than for future proceedmas.

these issues may be interpreted to mean energy sources couldbe employed. falls Response-ne Commission believes that they must still be treated in EIS's.

to discuss the institutional measures that there is no compelling reason why Re se-%e Commisalon does not that might be necessary to implement pending operating license promedings inten[that these issues be reexamined these changes, and falls to discuss the should be treated differently than future in m ry a nment,3 imM environmental consequences and proceedings. Since need for power and statement prepared at the opera societal costs of these actions.Some alternative energy source issues were censes W e d em M,toa #

commenters stated that the approach in considered at the CP stage for all Ponh confusion, se nnM has a these articles would require coercion of pending OL proceedings,in the ab' ence s

exclude e nf rming change to generally %,

utilities or final customers to achieve the of special circumstances, there is no tnatmenWue lunes in Se energy use mix advocated.Mr. Amory more reason to believe that the'se issues m

l 5L23&wem,in my

. lovine was a commenter on the would tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance mua casa, nch as whem it a an proposed rule and reiterated the against issuance of the operatinglicense Gat an altemauve exists eat is arly conclusions stated in the two artides.

in pendine cases than in future cases.

and sukanuah mimameMy lie stated that the details of his Accordingly, the rule, when effective, WPerfor, se Commlulon would be argument had not been worked out, but will apply to pending operating license obligated under NEPA to address these that his engineering / economic analyses '

dWs.

made him confident this finding would To'mments-%ree comments were issues inits environmentalimpact

~

Y

e-ne Commission has akem w uldY s the issuesin er an o

to evaluated these comments and further hoe raised under 10 CFR 2.758. Anthe environmentalimpact statement and reviewed the two articles.ne example of how I 2.758 could be used to w uld require the Lcense appbcant to address these issues inits Commisslon does not neccuarily agree raise need forpower and alternative envir nmental report as well.

with the varied comments on these energy source issues was given in the Accordingly, II 51.21 and 51.23 have articles. liowever, the Commission finds Su'pplementary Information to the been revised to make clear that while the articles lack sufficient analysts and proposed rule:"' *

• special documentation to support the arguments circumstances could exist if for escussion of need for power and altemauve mrgy soume luuals made. Moreover, the Commission is not example,it could be shown that nucleai, awere of any other reliable and plant operetions would entan generally not needed in environmental unexpected and significant adverse statements and reports at the operating documented information which conarms environmentalimpacts or that an Ucense stage, dismulon may be that the lovins-Ross condusions are erwironmentally and economleally required by the Commission.%e i

valid. On the other hand substantial superior altemative existed." %e Purpose of this change is to give the j

information exists, such as that cited la Commission the same latitude to i

the Supplementary Information of the proposed rule, which shows that nuclear 3,,3,,,,, m,9,, % %

consider environmental luues in special t

an=ornosunion Even e-ara o.c-b., seso, circumstancea where no bearing is.

' Asmary and Water tmins. Keep / War:

DOE /FJA-003sl7s) Draff Earborunna en/ Sdetannat involved or before a hearing ae it has i

l 3reoAlg Ae %cJrorfinA.Friende of the Earth,

/telatig to the 4crot.ian of Crond Cdf Mr. lear -

under i 2.758 where a heating la I

i teso, gy es-4s and footnotes 10s-111. emi Arnary E Storion t/n/ts I and1 NURIXMIrrr. bray test. pp.

InvoIved.

i Imlaa.1. Wnter imina. and Imanard Rosa. '

S-1 to 3-1 Cost & Quality of fbels for Electric

(

w c w,Po..r.J m eteara - t. Par ism utihty inna-occ-ber taea pos/nA-corgsof Comments-%e Natural Resources Ahlis la-tis 7-71. (Suaumar. a sso) u),

Defense Council,Inc. (NRDC) stated 1

s

.12942.. F@ ral Rep,ister / Vol. 47. No. 50 / Friday. Mcah 2S.1032 / Rules and Regulctions that the Accordingly, the Commission billev2 s issues in individuil OL procudings is impenhlprnpose,d rule is legally ssible urider NEPA. NRDC's that the rule complies with the not necessary.

belief that the pro osed rule is legal requirements in NEPA.

Regulatory Maxibility Statament-impermissible un er NEPA is groun ed Comment-Four commenters noted i

on its assertion that the Commission's that the proposed rule change did not In acco'rdance with the Regulatory

• mention the elimination of alternative Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

8 Interpretation of Cofrert Cliffs l

Coordinating Committee. Inc v. A.EC, site analysts at the OL stage, even the Commission hereby certifies that 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C Cir.1971) and Union ' though this has already been eliminated this rule will not have a significant of ConcernedScientisis v. A.EC. 490 by rule change (46 FR 28S30).

economicimpaet on a substantial '

F.2d 1009 (D.C Ctr.1974)in the Response-%e omission in the nufnber of small entitles.%e rule...

Supplementary information which proposed rule of the language in to CHL eliminates certain reporting accompanied the proposed rule is overly 51.21 whIch eliminates the consideration requirements for owners of nuclear broad. In addition. NRDC asserts the of alternative sites at the OL stage has power plants licensed pursuant to rule does not comply with the been reflected in the final cule.In sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic Commission a duty under NEPA to addition. a reference to the elimination Energy Act. as amended. 42 U S.C 2133 consider alternatives at the operating of conalderation of alternative sites in f

l l t

,2134b. Owners o nuc ear power p an s i

environmental impact statements has are not within the definitioriof 2 mall -

Yes

%e Commission disagrees been added to I 51.23(e).10 CFR 51.53(b), business found in section 3 of the Small and continues to balleve that those which eliminates consideration of Business Act.15 U.S.C 632. or within cases support the proposition that NEPA does not require the Commission to alternative sites at the OL hearing the Small Business Size Standards set duplicate at the operating license stage Process is already a part of the forth in13 CFR Fart 121.

Its review of alternatives absent new Commission's rules.

Accordingly. the Commisalon is information or new developments.%Is Comments-Three commenters who amending its regulations in to CFR Part is made clear in Union of Concerned favored the rule change stated that 51 to provide that need for power and Scientists wherein the Court explicitly

. Atpmic Safety and Licensing Boards alternative energy source issues will not stated "we expressly said in that nfay be able to initiate consideration of be considered in operating license opinion (referring to Colvert Cliffs) timt need for power and altern tive energy proceedings for nuclear power plants full NEPA consideration 'need not be sources. (suo sponte) even though and need not be addressed by operating

duplicated absent new information or parties to the proceeding may not.

license applicants in environmental new develc,pments, at the operattog Refponse-The Commission does not reports submitted to the NRC nor by the~

license stage.'"

• UCS at 1079.

believe that it is necessary to prohibit '

staffin environmentalimpact j

Alternative energy source issues receive licensing boards from bringing up issues statements (EIS's), at the operating i

and will continue to receive extensive on their own initiative, since 10 CFR '

license stage. An exception to or walver consideration at the CP stage. liowever.

2.760a limits this action to serious of the rule will be permitted in particular.

l judicial precedent makes clear that safety. environmental or common cases if special circumstances are NEPA requires agency decisionmakers defense and security matters.

shown in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758 4

to only consider reasonable alternative,s.

Comments-Seventeen of the of the Commission's regulations...

Enends of fAe Eorth v. Coleman 513 commenters who were opposed to the

" Consideration of Commission rules and

.t F.2d 295 (9th Cir.1975); Natural rule change stated generally that regulations in adjudicatory 4

Resos..ces Defense Couned v. Aforton.

changed conditions between the time of proceedings." ne rule will be applied to 458 F.2d 827 (D.C Cir.1972). Moreover, the construction permit proceeding (CP) ongoing licensing proceedings then it is well settled that environmental and the operating license proceeding pending on its effective date and to Iji 8a e (OL) such as increased costs. lower issues or contentions therein.

es r

in i un Iu cato'Y demand. new information, and new Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of z

proceedings. b ma resolved on a technologies warranted a consideration 1954. as amended, the National ne inun at b 01, stage and a Envimamental Policy Act. of1969. as 1

wi hout vi ating EPA e cology new determination made on need for amended. the Energy Reorganization 3

Action v. A EC 492 FId 998,1002 (2nd Cir"1974 h Power and alternative energy sources.

Act of 1974. as amended, and section

• I Scientistl) v.nion of ConcernedResponse-While it is true that 553 of'ntle 5 of the United States Code.

i A.EC. 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C certain factors may change between the notice is hereby given of the adoption of Cir.1974) and NaturoIResources CP and the OL proceeding, the notice of the following amendments to to CFR N

Defense Council v. N.R.C. 547 F.2d 633 Pr posedrulem sets forth why it is Part St.

641 (D.C Cir.1976). tev' don other unlikely that these anges would tip I,

- smunds ondamondedsub nom.

the NEPA cost. benefit balance against PART 51-LICENSING AND issuance of the operatinglicense. As REGULATORY POLICY AND

v. A U

t 1 s

in the absence of a showing of special more fully set forth in the notice.

PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONf.8 ENTAL i

experience shows that completed PROTECTION circumstances, resolves need for power lants are used to their and a!ternative energy source issucs in nuclear Powerfability and that there has 1.%e authon*y citation for Part 51 is W

maximum aval OL proceedings o, a generic basis.

never been a finding in a Commission revised to read as follows:

OL proceedig that a viable Authority: Sec. t otb, b. I and o. es Stat.

%.t..eocnt 81saa s of the WA.

reguladons of the Coundt of EnWanmentalQu.tity.

environmentally superior alternative to 948.949 and 950, as amended (42 USC not rerut.uon enc

..sende to uer-operation of the nuclear facility exists.

2201(b). (h). (1) and (a)); secs. 201,202. as stat.

• =*onmentallmPad st*=ents = ben it -betre the %e Comm!:slon expects this to be trus 2242-1244. as amended (42 USC 5841. 6842).

anos 3**d esynyo gjgung for the foreseeable future and hence,in NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act of1980

,,g,

the absence of a showing of special secs.102,104 and tos, as stat. ass-as4. as e,cu.d

• temrh..i..ddedr ni. comment w.s also es de by one of the commenters.

circumstances. consideration of these amended (42 USC 4332,4334. 4335).

-]

W w --- -

-N TT m

% e A

3Ia b

N M

1b*

et.*

g h

g

i 12943 Fed al RcriN / Vol. 47, No. 59 / I'riday, March 20,15,2 / Ilules cnd Regulations m_-

2. Section E1.21 f:.ovise<8~ 3. :d so no discuss!an of need for pswer or cppliccti:ns and to reduce FDICs costs

[

follows:

alternative energy sources or alternative for processing applications.

l l

sites is required, unless otherwise -

FDICis delegating to the Director of i

I5tJ1 Applicant's Envl omental required by the Commission.

Its Division of Bank Supervision ("DBS").

I and, where confirmed in writing by the Report-Operating LJcense Stage.

4.Section 51.53 is amended b adding Director, to the reg!onal director of the Each applicant for a license to operate -

FDIC region in which the applicant bank a production or utilization facility a new paragraph (c) to read as ollows:

is locatec., authority to approve, but not covered by I 51.5(s) shall submit with its application the number of copies, as 15t.53 Hearings-Operating scenaea.

to deny, applications for depoalt insurance subm! tied by proposed or..

specified in i 51.40, of a separate document, to be entitled "Appilcant's (c) Presiding officers shall not admit newly organized State nonmember '

Environmental Report-Operating contentions proffered by any party banks.nie delegation, however.is a favorable Ucense Sta8e," which discusses the concerning need for power or ~

effecti/e only wherQ1)by the delegate I 51.20 but alternative energy sources for the determination is made same matters described in. differ from proposed plant in operating license with respect to each of the six statutory only to the extent that they factors contained in section 6 of the FDI those discussed or reflect new hearings.

Act (12 U.S.C.1816) and (2) the information in addition to that discussed Dated at Washington D.C. this 22nd day of guldelines established in FDICs policy In the final environmentalImpact March, tes2.

statement on " Applications for Deposit statement prepared by the Commission For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Insurance" are satisfied. (Copies of in connection with the construction permit. De " Applicant's Environmental 889ual J. Chilk.

FDICs policy statement on Report-Operating Ucense Stage" may Secretary o/838 Coauniss/on.

" Applications for Deposit Insurance" incorporate by reference any gn o s a nsru.a w uaaa I are available from FDICs Executive ~

Information contained in the Applicant's sn m cootru w w Secretary or any of FDICs regional Environmental Report or final offices.) Among the criteria that the delegate must determine exist before an environmentalimpact statement FEDERAL. DEPOSIT INSURANCE ap 11 cation may be approved under previously prepared in connection with the construction permlL With respect to CORPORATION defegated authority are the following:

the operation of nuclear reactors, the 2 CFR Part 303 -

(1) Equity capitalis not less than applicant, unless otherwise required by

$750, m the Commission, shall submit the Director, Division of Bank Supervision (2)Le al fee's and other expenses

, Applicant s Environmental Report-and Regional Directors; Delegation of incune in connection with tne.

the firstifc ns ng action Authority to Approve App!! cations for,

posed new bank are determined to r et n it D # "*"*"**

that would authorize full power operation of the facill. No discussio'n ~50ENCY:FederalDeposit Insurance Int I ed Depository Institution Management of need for power or a ternative energy Corporation.

sources or alternative sites for the ACDON: Final rule.

Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3201), exist; (4) %e projected ratio of equity proposed plant is required in the report

• FDICs Board of Directors is capitri and reserves to assets,in uding unless otherwise required by the suuuaRY:

Comm!ssion.

delegating to the Director ofits Division projected profits and losses,is at least 3.Section 51.23 paragraph (e)is of Bank Supervision and to its regional 10 percent at the end of the third year of revised to read as follows:

directors authority. if delineated criteria Ope areInet.t 8pprove, but not to deny, 5) table operations are projected I 51.23 Contents of draft erMronmental deposit insurance applications. FDIC atlent fde hd p of opaum g,g expects this action will shorten the (6)%e proposed aggregate direct and processing time for routine applications Indirect investment in fixed assets is (e) Other considerations. A draft and will reduce FDICs costs for determined to be reasonable relative to environmentalimpact statement prepared in connection with the,

processing applications.

the ap licant's proposed equity oAm Effecuve on March 28,1982.

capita Ization, projected earnings issuance of an operating license wil; FOR FURTHER INFORM ATION CONTACT:

capacity, and other pertinent bases of cover only matters which differ from, or Ken A. Quincy. (202) 3b9-4141.

consideration:

which teflect new informaUon in addition to, those matters discussed in SUPPL.EMENTARY INFORM Anoet Under (7) Any financial arrangements made the final environmentalimpact.

section 5 of the Federal Deposit or proposed in connection with the state'nent prepared in connection with Insurance Act (the "FDI Act,"12 U.S.C.

proposed bank involving the applicant's the issuance of the construction permit.

1815), any State-chartered bank that is directors, officers. 5 percent

%e draft statement may incorporate by not a member of the Federal Reserve shareholders or theirinterests are reference any information contained in System (" State nonmember bank") and determined to be fair and made on that final environmental statement. With any branch of a foreign bank must apply substantially the same terms as those respect to the operation of nuclear to the FDIC to obtain Federal deposit prevailing at the time for comparable

~

reactors, unless otherwise determined insurance. In the past, all final transactions with noninsiders and do by the Commission, the draft statement determinations on applications for not involve more than normal risk or will be prepared only in connection with deposit insurance have been made by present other unfavorable features.%e the first licensing action that authorizes FDICs Board of Directors.

applicant also must have fully disclosed.

fullpower operation of the facility.In FDIC is now delegating greater or agree to disclose fully, any such the case of environmentalimpact responsibility for the approval of arrangement to all ofits proposed statements prepared in connection with applications. In doing so, it expects to directors and shareholders prior to the operatinglicenses for nuclear reactors shorten the processing time for routine opening of the bank:

G e