ML20050E279
| ML20050E279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204130190 | |
| Download: ML20050E279 (9) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROARD In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 v-9
)
50-455
/
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
S gqSO epif$'0* lh pp%I NRC STAFF MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTION 1(i)
INTRODUCTION N
/
On March 31, 1982, the Commission published a final rule, effec inmediately, in the Federal Register eliminating entirely the financial qualifications review and findings for an electric utility applicant and providing that the financial qualifications of such an applicant are not among the issues to be considered in pending or future construction permit and operating license proceedings.
47 F.R. 13750, 13753.1/
The Applicant's alleged lack of financial capability is among the contested issues in this proceeding.2/
In view of the final, effective 1/
A copy of the applicable notice is attached.
2/
Specifically, contention 1 states, in naterial part:
[T]he Applicant should not be granted an operating license unless it demonstrates that [it] is financially capable of supporting [1mprovenents in management, operations, and procedures].
As [a basisl for this contention, intervenors cite the following...(f) [t]he difficult financial position of Applicant, in that its credit ratings have been lowered, it is experiencing difficulty in raising money from traditional sources, and the Illinois Commerce Connission is presently re-evaluating Applicant's entire construction program (including Byron) to determine if funds by way of rates will be allowed.
8204130190 82040s 6
h PDR ADOCK 05000454
.' O PDR f
' /
l
~
. regulation eliminating consideration of financial qualifications in pending operating license proceedings, the NRC Staff moves for the dismissal of DAARE/ SAFE Contention 1(1) as set forth more fully below.
DISCUSSION In light of the Connission's elimination of financial qualification issues from nuclear licensing proceedings, contention 1(i) is no longer a litigable is' sue in this case.
The Appeal Board recently upheld a Licensing Board's dental of an untimely intervention petition which sought solely to raise an issue of financial qualifications on the primary grounds that such issue was no longer cognizable in NRC construction permit proceedings.
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-671,15 NRC (March 31, 1982).
The new regulation similarly precludes such issues from being litigated in operating license proceedings such as the one at bar. Accordingly, the Licensing Board need not and should not ad,iudicate the financial qualifications issues raised in contention 1(i) and should dismiss that contention on the ground that it raises issues that are not to be considered under the Commission's amended regulations.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff hereby moves that contention 1(i) be immediately dismissed from the proceeding without further consideration.
Respectfully submitted, I(
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Marylcnd this 8th day of April,198?.
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTION ](i) in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 8th day of April, 1982:
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Administrative Judge 1907 Stratford Lane Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Board Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603
- Docketing and Service Section Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Cherry & Flynn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Suite 3700 Washington, DC 20555 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccxanission Washington, DC 20555 7b[u.s M.4l Steven C. Goldberg u Counsel for NRC Staff
,- \\
13750 Federal Regleter / Vol. 47 No. a2 / Wednesday, March 31.1ssa / Rales and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY (2)(i) Also eliminated entirely these n,'-
and also requiring COtsutSSION requirements for operating Bosase Bceneses to demonstrate their abGity to applicants; or clean up after an anddent. By castreet.
10 CFR Parts 2 and 30 (11) Retained these requirements foe utdities, utikty peeps, and etthty operating license applicants to the esotractors support EHmination of Review of Financial extent they require submission of shminating the %==8== tan's r
@:= "tions requireasota,heimhgcolag.
Qualificatione of Doctrte utsties in information concerning the costs of Ucensing Hearings For Nuclear Power permanently shutting cown the fedlity Plante and maintaining it in a safe condition their representatives genereEy oppsee (i.e., decommissioning costs).
requiring mandatory property demses assocy:Nugry Concurrently,the Cc ' T lasurance Comments from legal commeel h.
proposed amending its regulations to ganaraDy reDected the interests and acnosc Final rule.
mquire, on an interim baala, power views of their utility, insurance, se reactor licensees to maintain the public interest clients. Covernmental 1 - dNuclear Regulatory maximum amount ofsommercially eelanizations and ladividuals resected Commission is amending its regulations available on-site property damage a spectrum of views, although most to eliminate entirely requirements for insurance, or an equivalent amount of were against eliminating the Ammarlal financial quahfications review and protection (e.g., letter of credit, bond or qualifications review. Some states and findings for electric utilities that are self insurance), from the time that the munidpalities identined potentiel legal applying for construction permits or r'am=fulon first permits ownership, conflicts between certain provisions of operating licenses for production or possession. and storage of special the propoud rulemaldag and state law.
utilization facihties. The Commission is nuclear material at the site of the A summary of the comments is l) also amending its regulations to require nuclear reactor."
presented below.%ose who are power reactor licensees to obtain on-site In the Federal Register notice, the interested may obtain copies of specific property damage insurance, or an Commission based its proposal for this comments from the Public Document equivalent amount of protection (e.g.,
rulemaking. In part, upon the statutory Room or the NRC Secretary under latter of credit, bond. or self insurance),
basis in the Atomic Energy Act of1954, designation PR-50 (46 FR 41786). by from the tarde that the Commission first as amended ("AEA") for the financial writing to: Office of the Secntary U.S.
Issues an operating license for the qualifications regulations and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission, l
nuclear aaetor.
discussion in Public Service Company of Weshington D.C. 20555.
[je8i]h8 A" A#d"#i#88 ## #]i*i"##i"# #h#.
arrscTivt cars:For amendments g
I NRC Commission 's financiol quohpcottons eluninating 11nancial qualiflcations 1 (1978)("Seabrook"). In that decision irriew. nose arguing against reducing review (i 2.104. Sections VI and VIII of and the proposed rulemaking. the w ehmMg ee Comminion's Appendix A to Part 2. i$ 2.4. 50.2.
Commission affirmed its belief that the financial qualifications review make Appendix C to Part 50. Appendix M. 'd existing financial qualifications review four major points. First, they discount paragraph 4.(b) to Part 50. I 50.33(f), an has done little to identify substantial NRC's presumption that public utilities i 50.40) Mar. 31.1982. For amendments health and safety concerns at nuclear can meet the financial demands of estabhshing on. site property damage power plants. Hewever, because the constructing and operating nuclear insurance requirement (i 5 50.54(w) and Commission bebeved that there are plants. Citing Seabrook, WPPSS.DC.
50.57). june 291982. la accordance with mattm important to safety which may South Texas and other examples.
the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.
be affected by financial considerations, commenters maintain that utilities often
[44 U.S C. 3507). the reporting provision it requested comments regarding the have experienced and will continue to that is included in paragraph (w)(5) of type of NRC financial review that would experience difficulty in raising funds to i 50.54 has been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget focus effectively on considerations that cover capital, operating, and might adversely affect safety.
maintenance costs (particularly in (OMB). It is not effective until OMB approval has been obtained.
II. Public Comments on the Proposed periods of high interest rates and Rule overcapacity), whether or not such costs POn ruRTHER INFoRMATION COstfaCT:
can be recovered in the rate base
(
lim C.Petersen. Office of State Over 160 comments were received on Grough Construction Wek in Prognu P
Programs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the proposed rulemaking and have been l
Commission. Weshington D.C. 20555 categorized as follows:
Oh*
'*I*' I' hs v
, ten (telephone 301-492-9683).
Prtwate dtizens-as comments recetved the inability to recover all costs SUPPt.1MENTARY thr0RadaT90sc Public interest groupe-30 comments received provides an incentive for utilities to Insurance groupe--2 comments received skimp on important safety com nents I. Background lasal c'ounsel-a comments received Govemmental organisations and and quality assurance stand
- s. Some On August 16.1981, the Commission ladividuale-to comments received commenters cite the discussion of published a notice of pro sed Utihtin and utility groupe-te comments financial disincentives in the Rogovin rulemaking in the F Register (46 recetved Report (Three Mile Island: A Ratiorf to FR 41786) concerning requirements for Architect-engineers and contracteee-a the Commission and the Public. Mitchell financial qualiScations review and coaunents roostved Rogovin. Director, January 1980) to findings for electric stilities that are All private citizen comments and all support their views. Another conunanter applying for perusits oc licenses for but two public interest group comments suggests that utilities will be tempted to production or utilisation facilities. As oppose reducing or eliminating the lower wages which would lead to higher Proposed, the rule would have:
Commission's financial qualification turnover and thus, to employment of (1) Elunineted entirely financial review requirements. However, they inadequately trained personnel.nlid.
quali5 cations review requirements for generally support imposing immediate commenters maintain that NRC construction permit applicants; and decommissioning financing inspection efforts and capabilities are O
F M
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. a2 / Wednesday. March 31, tes2 / Rules and Rasulations 13751 t
indequate to provide sufficient indicated ild support for the subetamos the kapertamos of h-=Imai-Eng assurance of safety. Esen if violations of the proposed rule-elimination of the funding to public health and satsey, but are found. some commenters argue thet financial qualincations review becease rather recopises that any actlas on t"
" = is more ap the sootext of the generic. __pespriate NRC enforcement efforts are of the lack of any demonstrable hnk inadequate. Fourth. the commenters between public health and safety assert that the Haandal qualiscations concerna and a stility's abety to make now being condussed. Until that time, resiew function is asatutorily required the requisite financial showing.
the Commission has concluded est it la by 42 U.S C. Ess2(e). (c) and (d).
De actual financial situation premature to include any Snel dealaion Further, many of those arguing against analyzed in that case has not changed.
on decommissioning in this Smal rule on ehminating the finandal quahficationa nere is no evidence that the safety of Anandal qualifications. Bessees he resiew recommand that the Commission the public has been adversely affected generic decommissioning rule is should at least retain that portion of the by Public Service Company of New scheduled to be published in 1 gat and redew pertaining to decommissioning Hampshire's (PSCNH) difficulties in since alllicensees will be required to They state that the ongoing obtaining financing. it is true that to meet any financial requirernents decommissiods rulemaking is no raise capital. PSCNH has sold part ofits imposed as a result of that rulemaking.
substitute for an immediate general ownership in the Seabrook plant.but there should be little practical effect in requirement to demonstrate fmancial such action does not have any temporarily eliminating consideration of capabihty to decommission a nuclear demonstrable link to any safety decommissioning funding from licensing production on utabzation facihty safely problems. Similarly. citing WPPSS' activities. Moreover. if decommissioning and esped,tious!y. Man) expressed the experience is not convincing. because financing issues were' continued to be dew that the generic decommissioning WPPSS* response (and that of most other allowed in current licensing study wcald not be completed in a utilities encountering financial proceedings, two undesirable effects re.nonab:e tune.
difficulties) has been to postpone or may result. First, there would be an B contrast. those fasoring the cancel their plants. actions clearly not increased chance that fmdings in such 3
Corran:ssion's preposed reduction or inimical to public health and safety cases might contradict evolving chmmat;cn of the fmancial under the Atomic Energy Act.
Commission policy in this area Second.
qual.L.t.ons reGei. hmetion generally As to the third point raised in one positive gain from the $nal rule support the Commission's reasoning that opposition to the proposed rule. in the would be countered. in that there could such a reuew has done little to identify absence of facts to the contrary, the be expected to be little. if any, reduction substanta e health and safety problems Commission cannot accept unsupported in the contentions before the beensing at nucicar power p;.nts and that the statements that, as a general matter its boards on financial quahfications Commission s inspection and inspection and enforcement efforta are issues. thereby not significantly enforcement activities provide more inadequate.ne examples that reducing the time and effort devoted to effectae protection of pubbe health and commenters cite (e 3., South Texas) those issues.
safety. Most ut:hties and their appear to substantiate. rather thna B. Mondc.'ory picperty insurance for associates support complete elirnination undercut, the Comniission's view that decontominot. ion. Commenta are of the fmancial quahfications review, any violations of safety regulations are similarly divided on the issue of including prous;ons pertaining to being found and conected and that. in requiring on si.e property insurance to decomm:ssioning These commenters any event. such violations cannot be cover decontamination expenses mamtam that. If any regulations relating shown to arise from a licensee's alleged resulting from an accident Those who
^
to the financing of decommissioning are lack of financial quahfications.
support keeping the fmancial adopted they should await completion With respect to the fmal assertion that quahfications review generall> support of the Commission's generic rulemaking the financial qualifications review requiring a utiht) to demonstrate proof an decommissioning.
function is statutorily mandated. Section ofits abibty to clean up after an The Commission has received no 182a of the AEA.42 U.S.C.2232(a),
accident. The Commission interprets l
comments to persuade it to change clearly indicates that such function is these cornments as supporting sigmficantly its reasoninF on the within the Commission's discretionary mandatory property insurance. insofar proposed fmancial qualifications rule, authority.but is not mandated. As noted as it cosers accident cleanup costs. The As indicated above,many of those in the proposed rule, this interpretation other comn enters favoring elimination opposing the proposed rule change have of Section Ic2a has been approved by of the financial qualifications rule concluded that expenence with the United States Court of Appeals for generally either (1) oppose mandatory Seabrook. WFPSS and other plants the First Circuit in New Erg /ond coverage outright because of recent self.
demonstrates the close connection Coalition on Nuclear hl!usion v. NRC initiated moves by the utility industry to betw een fmancial qualifications and 582 F.2d 87. 93 (1978), affirmir.g the obtain insurance or (2) favor substantal pubhc health and safety.The NRC's SeabrooA decision.
modification of the rule to clarify Commission disag*ees As to the first On balance. after careful several ofits provisions.
point raised by commenters opposing consideration of the comments The first group of commenters do not ehmination of the financial submitted and of the factors discussed generally state their reasons for favoring qushfications review, the Commission in the notice of proposed rulamakmg mandatory insurance except for an dces not find any reason to consider. In the Comrnission has elected to undefined and non-quantifiable general a s acuum. the general abthty of utihties promulgate the first of the two benefit in protecting pubhc healta and to fmance the construction of new alternatives outhned in the proposed safety. Some indicated that the amount generation faceties. Only when joined rule. l.e., eliminate the financisa of insurance currently available is not with the issue of adequate protection of qualifications review of electric utilities sufficient to cover accidents such as j
the public health and safety does this entirely at the CP and OI. stages.
30-2. However, because of remntly i
assue become pertinent. As to this, the includingeliminationof any announced increases in the amount of l
commenters* second point, the consideretion of decommissioning coverage available and the continuing Commission in its SeabrooA decision funding his is not meant to discount evolution in the insurance markets. this
- 1 Tcderal Register / Vol. 47. No. a2 / Wednesday, March 31, test / Rules and RaSulations 13752 concern may not be as great as might Commission disagrees with the poultion authority to require each additlanal otherwise be the case.
taken by some commenters thatit le information la ladividual cases se may As indicated above, the second group unfair to many owners of smaller power be necessary for the Commisados to of commentere-primarily utilities and reactors to require insurance peatly determine whetbar sa appilastles their representativeHbject more to exceeding the cost of replacing the abould be tad or denied er whether the wording of certain provisions of the facility. A TMI-2 type anddest could a Boonee be mod 18ed or resehad.
proposed on site property damage well require coverase approe
$1 See, for example, the fourth assesmes of insurance rule than to the requirement billion. no matter what the Sectico tasa of the AIA. Similerty,as itself. Several casamenters recognize value or size of the facility.ne change la the preenst powere of as that the practical effect of requiring Commission expects that the required ts
.t. aron with regard W the Ana=sdat mandatory insurance has been reduced.
insurance will cover reasonable quah8cadons review of particularly since the DC-2 accident.
decontamination and cleanup costs appucants for part 30 twiiama be because most utilities will buy whatever anodated with the property damage made. In ad&6an. an excep6cm 2 or amount of coverage is offered. within resulting from an seddent at the walvar from the rule would be possible reasonable limits, as a matter of good licenud facihry. Until completion of to require se ubmiulon of Snandal business judgment. Other commenters studies evaluating the ocet of cleaning information bom a particular electric severity.it is agli appucant if spedal orcumstanen up acddents of vpor all power reactors indicate that the Commission s prudent to requlte m
purse W 2 CFR 2.758 in estimates of armual premiums required for a typical reactor may have been a reasonable amount ofinsuran64 for an indiddaal hcensing hearing.
understated Estimated premiums for decontaminetton swpaaa=
E Proctical4pocas. Also as coverage current!> avsilable (1 e $375
- 3. Several persons commented that indicated above and in the proposed or $450 milhon) are 53 million per year nector heensees should not be required for a typical two.umt site.
to maintain on. site property damage rule. the Comminaion continues to in hght of these comments and for the insurance until the operating license has expect that the final rule will. In normal reasons stated in the proposed rule. the been received. With fuel merely stored circumstances. reduce tLe time and
' Commission has decided to retain the at a reactor, the chance of an acddent effort which applicants. licensees. the requ.nn6 extensive decontamination is NRC staff and NRC adjudicatory boards requirement in the final rule that electric i~
utihties must hase on-site property extremely remote. De Commission devote to reviewing the appbcant's or damage insurance, but several agrees and has changed the rule licensee's financial qualifications. The mo&fications has e been made pursuant accordingly, so that such insurance need rule will eliminate staff review in cases to the comments recened.The following be in force only when the utility is where the applicant is an electne utihty, changes has e been incorporated into the licensed to operate the reactor.
presumed to be able to finance activities text of the final rule on property
- 4. Several Texas utilities commented to be authorized under the permit or that the Texas constitution (and.
licanu insurance:
- 1. The definition of " maximum apparently, the Louisiana and Idaho C. License Amendments. De available amount" has been clarified.
constitutions) prohibits certain ehmination by this rule of the financial This term could hase been mterpreted to municipal utihties from purchasing qualifications review for electric utility mean that utihties would be required to insurance either offered by mutual applicants slao applies to any electric switch their insurance coverage to the insurance companies or involving utilities that become co owners via carner offenng the g'estest amount at retroactve assessments.%e amendments to existing permits or any particular time Another Commission has revised the rule to licenses. From time to time, original interpretation could be that utilities address these concerna.
owners of production or utilization would be required to obtain coverage
- 5. One commenter discussed the need facilities make. arrangements to transfer from the two major insurers or any other to clarify the amount of time required of to oga e;ectnc ug3tu a poen oy ge k
insurer that decides to enter this market. the licensee to obtain not only initial ownership in the facility. Normally, an Finally. the " maximum available" could insurance but also subsequent incesses amendment request is then filed, which increment no matter offered. Another suggested that many seeks to add the new partner as co-have included and or how restrictive the regulated utilties may have difficulty in owner and co-b.censee. For the purposes how highly pnce terms and cond tions The Commission's obtaining approval to purchase of &is rule. simunr to se situsuen intent is neither to d srupt the insurance insurance within 90 days.ne Mlaung to prelicensing antitrust review markets by forcing utilites to switch Commission has revised the rule to of these new owners, the amendment their insurance carners unnecessarily reflect its view that 90 days is a request comprises the initial b, cense nor to require utilities to obtain reasonable time in which to take application by the new prospective co-insurance under unreasonable terms reasonable steps to obtain both initial owner even though the amendment and con &tions The rule has been and any additional on. site property mquest may actually be filed by the l
changed to clanfy the Commission's damage insurance.
pmsent licensee and owner. Eq Detroit f
intent specifically in 4 50.54(w).
- 8. De phrase "commercialJy Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic
- 2. Some commenters maintained that available" insurance could have been the proposed rule should apply only to construed to exclude insurers such as Power Plant. Unit No. 2). A1.AB-475. 7 NRC 752. 755 n.7 (1tr78). Since the same insurance covering decontamination of a NM1. and NEII. The Commission financia1 qualifications review facihty suffering an accident and not to recognizes this possible but erroneous "all nek" property damage insurance.
interpretation and has changed the considerations apply to all electric Because decontassination insurance is wordm' g of the rule accordingly.
utilf ty applicants, regardless of the particular manner in which their the Commisalon's only ecocern from the HI. Oew Considerations application is tendered to the NRC. it point of view of protecting public health and safety, coverage to replace the A.RequirementforAdditional abould be clear that this final rule existing facility on an "all risk" basis is Information. As indicated in the applies to any request for an beyond the scope of the Commission's proposed rule the Commission does not amendment that would,if granted, authonty. By the same reasoning. the intend to waive or relinquish its ruidual include a new electric utihty as a co-
Fed:r:1 Register / Vt:1. 47. Ns. 62 / Wednesday, March 31, 1982 / Rules and Reguhtions 13753 owner and co hcensee in a production
- 1. 91Wl11). The date ce which the see 86 Pub. L 91-asa es Sest.1412 (42 U.S C or utshzation facility, information collection requirements of 3188).
IV Condusion this rule becane eMM. unlow advised to the contrary, socoedingly.
- 2. In 12.4. new paragraph (s)is added g,, g,y,,,'.
In summary the Commission has reflects induelon of the 80 day penod concluded that the adoption of the rule which the Act allows for such review.
g 3.4 commuana, c,,",
[i Regulatoey Flexibility Certincelles As used in this part.
i demonstrating Anancial qualifications of In accordance with the Regulatory electnc utilities that are applying to Flexibibry Act of1sso,t U.S.C. sos (b).
(s)" Electric utihty" means any entity construct and operate nuclear the NRC hereby certifies that this rule that generates or distributes electricity production and utilization factitties will not have a significant economic and which recovers the costs of this without reducing the protection of the impact on a substantial number of smaU electricity, either directly or ladirectly, pubhc health and safety. This portion of entities The rule reduces certsin minor through rates established by the entity the rule will be effective immediately.
information co!!ection requirements on itself or by a separate regulatory upon pubhcation, pursuant to 5 U.S C.
the owners and operators of nuclear authority. Investor-owned utihties
$33[d)(11. since the rule is expected to power plants licensed pursuant to including generation or distribution reliese sigmficantly the obligation of sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic subsidiaries, pubhc utility districts.
certein appbcants with respect to Energy Aet of 1954, as amended. 42 municipalities, rural electric information required for construction U.S C. 2133. 2134b. These electric utility cooperatives. and state and federal permits and operstmg licenses. and also companies are dominant in their service agencies,includmg associations of any to reduce the amount of unnecessary, areas. Accordingly, the companies that of the foregoing. are included within the time. consuming staff review and own and operate nuclear power planta meaning of electric utihty."
adjudicatory proceeding =. Although the are not within the dennition of a smau rule will be apphed to ongo licensing business found in section 3 of the SmaU
- 3. In 12.104, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and proceedmgs now pendmg an to issues Business Act.15 U.S.C. 632. or within introductory paragraph (c)(4) are revised to read as follows-or contentions therein. Union of the Small Business Size Standarda set A
ContemedScientists v. AEC 499 F.2d forth in 13 CFR Part 121 32.104 Notice of hearing-1069 (D C Cir.1974),it should be clear Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of that the NRC neither intends nor 1954, as amended. the Energy espects that the rule will affect the Reorganizatiori Act of t974, as amended.
(b),,,
scope of an) issues or contentions and section 553 of Title 5 of the United (1) * *
- related to a cost / benefit analysis States Code, the following amendments (iii) Whether the applicant is performed pursuant to the National 1o 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 are published financially quahfied to design and Environinental Pohty Act of 1969. either as a document subject to codification.
construct the proposed facihty, except
?
in pendmg or future hcensing proceedmgs for nuclear power plants PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR that this subject shall not be en issue if Under NEPA. the issue is not whether DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS the applicant is an electric utihty the apphcant can demonstrate
. The authority citation for Part 2 seeking a license to construct a reasonable assurance of covenng reads as follows.
production or utilization facility of the type described in 150.21(b) or $ 50.22.
certain projected costs. but weather is Authority: Sees 161.181. 8e Stat. sea. e53 mereh what costs to the apphcant of (42 U S C 2201. 22311. sec.191. as amended
~
constructmg and operating the plant are Pub L s7-415. 76 Stat. 40s (42 U.S C 2241).
(c)***
to be put into the cost. benefit balance.
uc. 201. Pub. L eb438. se Stat.1242. as (4) Whether the applicant is yegded hb L
. se at 41 (4 As is now the case, the rule of reason a
technically and fmancially quahfied to will continue to gesern the scope of what costs are to be included in the issued under seca 53. a2. e1.103.104.105. as engage m the activities to be authorized Stat 930 932. 935. eso. e37, saa. as amended by the operating license in accordance balance and the resulting (42 U S C 2073. 20es. 2n1. 22n. 21n 22nt with the regulations in this chapter, determmations ma) still be the subject sec.102. Pub L ti-teo. es Stat. a53 (42 U.S C.
except that the issue of financial oflitigation TNs. fmancial 4332). sec. 301. as Stat. 1248 (42 U.S C as71).
quahfications shall not be considered by
.quahfications would not be expected to Sectons 21o2. 2.104. 2.105. 2.721 also inued the presiding officer in an operstmg become an tssue or contention in an undets,ecs 1 beense hesnngif the apphcant is an o3 1 1 83 se t
g g NRC bcens;ng proceedmg insofar as NEPA might be msched.
a p 2 M n.2 n 1 223el h a electric utility seeking a hcense to i
The Commission ha: also concluded 2 20a.2 20e also inued under sec.1sa, as Stat.
operate a production or utilization oss (42 U S C 223e1 sec. 20s, se Sist 1246 (42 facihty of the type described in that adoption of the on. site property U S C Ss4el Sections 2 600-2 606. 2 730.
150.21(b) or 150.22.
A mage msurance requirement. as 2 772 also issued under sec.102. Pub L modshed. will better ensure that el-190. 63 Stat 853 (42 U S C. 43321 adequate protection of the health and Sections 2 fooa. 2.719 also issued under
- 4. In Appendix A of Part 2. Sections safety of the pubhc is achiesed. This 5 U.S C 554 Sections 2.754.2.760.
VI(c)(1)(iii) and Vill (b)(4) are revised to requirement will be effective June 29, 2.77o also issued under 5 U.S C 557.
read as follows-gg Section 2 7eo also issued under sec.103 tA Stat ett as arnended t42 U S C 21331 Appendix A-Staternent of General Pohcy Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Sections 2 800-2 807 also issued under 5 and Procedure Conduct of Proceedlage for
& in oh aP ad The Nucleat Ragulatory Commission
$5"NdN
' '"a i h U S C Opersties Ucenses Ior Production and s st has submitted this rule to the OfLce of 4n:3 5,ci,on 2 aos also inued under 5 U S C Utilization Facihon for W1uch a Heartag Is Management and Budget for such S$3 and ecc. Ze. Pub. L 65-256. 71 Stat 579 as Require n Sect o 1MA of the Atome FeView as may be appropriate under the wended by Pub L e5-20s. 91 Stat.1483 (42 Ener:3 Act oI1954.as Amended l
Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(Pub U S C 203e; Append 2n A is also issued under 9
.. ay Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31, 1982 / Rulee and Regulations 13754 VI Posthearing Proceedings.locJudag the cooperatives, and state and federal of constracting or operating a fadBty lainzl Dedsion agencies. including assodations of any must alac indede information showing-of the foregoing. are included within the (i)%e legal and Saandal fel * *
- meaning of " electric utility."
relationships it has or proposes to have m***
7 In i 30.33. paragraph (f)la revised to with its stockholders ce ownere.
(m) Whether the appbcant la financiaUy read as follows:
(U) heir Ananeent ability to meet any
'l com ual % don to &e endty quahfied to design and constract the which they have incumd or propose to afl n t be an is'oue sa facur" and electric utaht) seeking a ticasse to construct a Each apphcation most state:
(iii) Any other information considered production or utihzabon fadllry of the type necessary by the Commission to enable descr: bed in i So 21(b! or 50.72.
(f)(1)Information sufBelent to it to determine the applicant's financial monWsk 2 b % nmbska b
- cah
. Vill Prwedures Appbcable to Operating Snancial quauncations of the apphcant (3) Eaoept for electric stility IJcense Proceedings to carry out,in accordance with applicants for construction permita and j
regulations in this chapter, the activities operating licenses, the Commission may g)...
for which the permit or license is sought. request an established antity or newly-(4) Whether the apphcant is technicaUy However, no information on Snancial formed entity to submit additional or and financiaH) quahfied to ecange in the cctiuties to be authertzed by the operating quahfications. including that in more detailed information respecting its Lcense :n accordance with the Commission'a paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this Snancial arrangements and status of regulations. except that the issue of fLnancial section,is required in any application.
funda if the Commission considers this quehfications shall net be considered by the not shaU any financial review be information appropriate.This may board He apphcant is an electne utihty conducted,if the applicant is an electric include information regaMing a
, applicant for a hcense to licanm's ability to continue the conduct i
l seekms a heense to operate a production or y
t at o fa t of the t)Te desenbed in construct or operate a production or of the activities authorized by the utihzation facility of the type described license and to permanently shut down in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22.
the facility and ma:ntain it in a safe (i} If the application is for a condation.
PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF construction permit, the applicant shaU
+
+
+
+
+
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION submit information that demonstrates
- 8. In ( 50.40. paragraph (b) is revised FACILITIES the applicant possesses or has to read as foHows:
5 The authority citation for Part Sois reasonable assurance of obtaining the revised to read as follows:
funds necessary to cover estimated 1 50.40 Common standards.
Authartt3 : Sees 10310416L 182.183.189.
construction costs and related fuel cycle Ga Stat e36 917 94& 953. 954. 955. 956. as costs.The applicant shall submit (b)The applicant is technicaUy and arnended (42 tts C 2133. 2154 22ct. 2232.
estimatee of the total construction costs financially qualified to engage in the 2233. 22391 secs 201 202. 206. as Sist 1243, of the facility and related fuel cycle proposed activities in accordance with 12{y(42 4 's
"")d costs, and shallindicate the source (s) of the regulations in this chapter. However, SC 1
e funds to cover these costs.
no consideration of financial under sec 122 6e Siat 939 (42 t' S C 21521 (ii)If the application is for an qualifications is necessary for an j
Sections 50 sa-Sc et a!se issued under sec. 164 68 Stat 9}4 as amended (42 U.S C 2234) operating license, the applicant shall electric utility applicant for a license for Sections 5o 10450102 issued under see 186.
submit information that demonstrates a production or utilization facility of the 68 Stat 955 (42 L' S C 2:36) For the purposes the applicant possesses or has tpe described in { 50.21[b] or 150.22.
i of sec 223 6e Stat 958 as amended (42 U S C reasonable assurance of obtaining the t
b 4
funds necessary to cover estimated
- 9. In 150.54. a new paragraph (w) is f
{3y [l{la d (c1 d'e operation costs for the period of the added to read as follows:
d I
s,etb. 6a Stat 948 as amended (42 U S C.
bcense, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down 150.54 Conditions of scensee.
(
d d
s nder c eli 68 Sta 949 a amended l42 U S C 2201bil and il 50 55(e),
and mainteiru'ng 11in a safe condition.
Sc 59tbl 50 ?o So rt 50 72 and 50 7s are The applicant shaU submit estimates for (w) Each electric utility licensee under usaed under se: 1eto 68 S'at 950 as total annual operating costs for each of this part for a production or utthzation j
amended l42 l' S C 2201to)).
the first five years of operation of the facihty of the type descnbed in 6 in i 50 2. a new paragraph (*)is facility and estimates of the costs to
$ 50.21(b) or I 50.22 shall, by June 29.
I' permanently shut down the facility and 1962, take reasonable steps to obtain on.
added to read as follow s maintain it in a safe condition.The site property damage insurance 1 50.2 Dennmone.
applicant shal;.lsoindicate the available at reasonable costs and on As used in this part.
source (s) of fun is to cover these costs.
reasonable terms from private sources An application to renew or extend the or to demonstrate to the satisfaction of (s) " Electric utihty" means any entity term of an operatinglicense must the Commission that it possesses an that generates or distributes electricity include the same financialinformation equivalent amount of protection and which recovers the costa of this as required in en application for an covering the facility. Provided. that:
electncity, either directly or indirectly, initial beense.
(1) This insurance must have a through rates established by the entity (2) Except for electric utility minimum coverage limit no less than the itself or b) a separate esgulatory applicants for construction permits and combined total of (i) that offered by authont). Investor. owned utilities, operating licenses. each application for either American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) including generation or distribution a construct >on permit or an operating and Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance subsidianes, pubhc ut hty districts, license submitted by a newly formed Pool (MAERP) jointly or Nuclear Mutual municipahties, rural electric entity organized for the primary purpose Limited (NMI.); plus (ii) that offered by f
~
Teder:1 Register / Vol. 47. N2. 82 / Wednes.!ay. March 31. test / Rules and Regaletions 13755 Nucleat Eleetric Insurance 1.imited Anancial protection it maintaims and the
- 12. As M to Part 30.
(NEIL). the Edison Electric Institute sources of this insurance or protection.
]le revised to read as (EEI). ANI and MAERP jointly, or NML
- 10. In 150.57 yh (a)(4)is as excess property insurance:
revised to read as f s:
m of Design.
1 (2)The licensee shall, mthin ninety d Musins, moue anonsmum; (90) days of any lacreases in policy
$ M teouence W M Busmen-Camsensium and Operades of Musimus ptune limits for pnmary or excess coverage (a) * *
- Emesanse Adamufassmed pwomums as that it has obtained pursuant to this (4)The applicant is techale=11y and paragraph, take reasonable steps to Snancially qualined to engage is the obtein these increases; and activities authorised by the operating h,, M lef - nom subudasd (3) When a licensee is prohibited from license in accordance with the a las.astr)shall be dwarned at a purchasing on. site property damage regulations in this chapter. However. no ese of the aet ganhncations n
insurance because of state orlocallew.
Anding of Anancial qualiacations is of the appboast for the snesafecturuis hcense the licensee shall purchase the specific necessary for an electric utility a entry set the anamefactunas acwy for amount of such insurance found by the applicant for an operating license for a f,theheemse t.
NRC to be reasonably available to that production or utilization facility of the 26 day of beensee, or to obtam an equivalent type described in 150.21(b) or 150.22.
[a%on.E emount of protection; and Fee The Nuclear Regulatory Commission W
I oe ye r to the as o present lesels of this insurance or 11 P is amended by removing ery ission
_.e.a -
.