ML20052A884
| ML20052A884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1982 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204290320 | |
| Download: ML20052A884 (14) | |
Text
P 04/27/82
/\\
C' y
.q'^
'q,
- Yn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
?. G gok[a 3 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
U BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-1.,
~
f, TG
~
In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
50-441 OL (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUE 2 I.
INTRODUCTION On March 31, 1982, the Commission amended its regulations in 10 C.F.R. Parts 2 and 50, effective immediately, to eliminate the requirement for financial qualifications reviews and findings for I
electric utility applicants and to provide that the financial qualifications of such applicants for nuclear power reactors licenses are not among the issues to be considered in pending or future construction permit and operating license proceedings. 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (copy attached). On the basis of this amendment to the regulatinns, Applicants l
have moved to dismiss Issue 2 as an issue in this proceeding.
For the reasons stated in this response, the NRC Staff supports Applicants'
- motion, i
I ace **
Certi m d D -
820420,D Ao
> /,
II. DISCUSSION On July 28, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted intervenors' contentions on financial qualifications of Applicants in the form of rephrased Issue 2 which reads as follows:
Applicant has not demonstrated that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation, including the costs of reasonably foreseeable contingencies, for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.
1/
Since the Board's order, the Commission has promulgated amendments to its regulations in 10 C.F.R. Parts 2 and 50 to eliminate the requirement that " electric utility" applicants for operating licenses for production or utilization facilities of the type described in 10 C.F.R
% 50.22 demonstrate their financial qualifications "to engage in the activities to be authorized by the operating license." 47 Fed.
Reg.13750,13753,10C.F.R.52.104(c)(4),650.33(f)(1). Applicants' motion states that they are " electric utilities" within the Commission's l
l definition and that their application is for a utilization facility of thetypedescribedinQ50.22.2/ There is no dispute as to these facts.
(
There should also be no dispute as to the applicability of the amendment to a pending operating license proceeding, such as this one.
The Statement of Considerations states that the amendment will be 1/
14 NRC 175, 195-197.
--2/
Motion to Dismiss Financial Qualifications Contention (April 7, 1982) at 2 (misnumbered as 3).
i l
l
applicable to " ongoing licensing proceedings now pending and to issues or contentions therein."3/ The provision of the amended regulations which states that the issue of electric utility applicants' financial qualifications to operate a nuclear power plant "shall not be considered by the presiding officer in an operating license hearing"SI is, therefore, clearly applicable to this proceeding.
In assessing the effect of the amended rules on the financial qualifications questions raised in this proceeding the Staff has considered not only the wording of Issue 2, but also the financial qualifications contentions initially advanced by the Intervenors, two by Sunflower Alliance and one by Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy
("0C RE" )S_/.Sunflower's " Grounds for Intervention" (i.e., contentions) on financial qualifications state:
Petitioners allege that the Applicants have not demonstrated that they have the financial capability of completing Units 1 and 2; that they lack the financial capability of operating Units 1 and 2; that they lack the financial capability of decommissioning the facilities and protecting the facilities after decommissioning.
[Second Ground of Intervention].
3/
4/
Id., 10 C.F.R 9 2.104(c)(4).
l
-5/
Such an inquiry is appropriate in light of the Board's indication that the broadly stated " Issues" subsume the more specific l
contentions. See 14 NRC 185, 189 ("The contentions [ speaking there of emergency planning contentions] combined in this generally phrased issue raised a series of specific factual concerns related to the overall proposition that the emergency plan is not
' workable.'"); 14 NRC 682, 686, where the Board, in rejecting Applicants' assertion that Issue 1 (emergency planning) was overly broad and vague stated, "Intervenors added specificity both in their filings and at the prehearing conference."
Petitioners allege that the application of Applicant... has failed to establish satisfactorily financial protection to 3rotect the public during the deconsnissioning process.
[ Tenth Ground of Intervention] 6/
OCRE contention 7 states:
Applicant does not have the funds necessary to decommission the Perry plant prematurely should a TMI-type accident occur.
In the aftermath of a TMI-type accident, Applicant's solvency would be imperative for the health and safety of OCRE members and the public. Applicant will need to promptly institute clean-up procedures to reduce further public jeopardy while maintaining containment integrity throughout that clean-up. The current financial straits of General Public Utilities (TMI) demonstrate that responsible and safe operation of a nuclear plant includes ader: ate preparation for such contingencies.7_/
Pursuant to the regulations in effect at the time of the filing of these contentions and the admission of Issue 2, an applicant for an operating license for a nuclear power plant was required to demonstrate its ability to cover the " estimated operation costs for the period of the license, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition."8/ There appears to be a 6/
Petition for Leave to Intervene (March 15,1981). The Board has
~
already ruled that:
"The Board will not consider arguments concerning the validity of the construction permit because those arguments have been fully litigated and are not properly part of this proceeding."
-7/
OCRE's Supplement to Its Petition for Leave to Intervene (April 30, 1981).
8_/
distinction between the " normal" decommissioning which would take place following a facility's useful life (and which is the subject of the Commission's amended regulations on financial qualifications) and the
" premature" decommissioning raised in OCRE contention 7.
No mention is made of clean-up costs in the Commission's Statement of Considerations which accompanies the amendment to the regulations on financial qualifications.9I In contrast, the Commission has addressed the issue of a licensee's ability to finance clean-up of a nuclear plant following an accident by amending separate provisions of its regulations to require power reactor licensees to obtain a minimum level of on-site property damage insurance, or an equivalent amount of protection. 47 Fed.
Reg.13751-13752,13754-13755,10C.F.R.650.54(w).E/ The demonstration of financial qualifications to cover "the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition" (a demonstration which no longer need be made for electric utility applicants for nuclear power plant licenses) does not, therefore, appear to embrace the financial capability to clean up the facility following an accident.
To the extent that 0CRE contention 7 t
-9/
47 Fed. Reg. 13750. See also the Statement of Considerations which accompanied the proposed rule, 46 Fed. Reg. 41786 (August 18,1981),
and the Commission's advance notice of rulemaking on " Decommission-i 1
ing Criteria for Nuclear Facilities," 43 Fed. Reg 10370 (March 13, 1978).
-10/ No contention advanced in this proceeding directly raises a question regarding onsite property damage insurance and, thus, that amendment to the regulations does not affect the admissibility of any contention which has been raised.
l l
l l
asserted that Applicants were required to make a demonstration of their financial capability to clean up the Perry facility following an accident, we assume that the Board did not admit those aspects of the contentions as part of Issue 2.
The intent of the Commission in amending its financial qualifica-tions regulations, as set forth in the accompanying Statement of Considerations, was to eliminate " entirely" consideration of the financial qualifications of electric utility applicants to operate nuclear power plants.El Consistent with the amended regulations and with the Commission's Statement of Considerations, the Staff concludes that the Licensing Board should grant Applicants' motion to dismiss Issue 2 as an issue of controversy in this proceeding.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Staff supports Applicants' motion for the dismissal of Issue 2.
Respectfully submitted, Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of April,1982 H/ 47 Fed. Reg. 13750
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441 OL (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
' Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUE 2" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the finited States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal nail system, this 27th day of April, 1982:
- Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 105 Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Lake County Administration Center Washington, D.C.
20555 Painesville, Ohio 44077
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline Tod J. Kenney Administrative Judge 228 South College Apt. A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.
Wegman, Hesiler & Vanderberg
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon 7301 Chippewa Road, Suite 102 Administrative Judge Brecksville, Ohio 44141 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jeff Alexander Washington, D.C.
20555 920 Wilmington Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45420 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Terry Lodge, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Attorney for Intervenors Washington, D.C.
20036 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604
2-4
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert Alexander U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2030 Poartsmouth St., #2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77098
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel John G. Cardinal, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Prosecuting Attorney Washington, D.C.
20555 Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Susan Hiatt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 8275 Munson Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 h hk Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff O
I
--v-v---
- --~
=-
---A-
13750 Federal Register / Vol. 47. N3. 62 / Wednesday March 31.1982 / Rules and Regula~ona NUCLEAR REGULATORY (2)(1) Also eliminated entirely these requirements and also requiring COMMISSION requirements for operating boense licensees to demonstrate their ability to applicants; or clean up after an acddent By contrast.
10 CFR Parta 2 and 50 (U) Retsined these requirements for stihties, utility yovps, and utihty operating license applicants to the contractors support conspletel E!!mination of Review of Financial extent they require submission of eliminating the Commission's Qualifications of Electric Utilities in information concerning the costs of ah8 cations requirements, includlag Licensing Hearings For Nuclear Power permanently shutting down the facility loning. Further.stiuties and i
. Planta and maintaining it in a safe condition their representatives generally oppose (i.e, decommissioning costs).
requiring mandatory property damage aoswcy: Nuclear Regulatory Concurrently, the Commission lasurance. Comments from legal asensel Commission.
proposed amending its regulations to generally reDected the interests and Actiow: Final rule.
require on an interim basis, power views of their utility,lasurance, or reactor licensees to maintain the public interest clients. Covernmental svuesany:The Nuclear Regulatory maximum amount of sor2mercially oeganizations and individuals reDected 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 finandal financial qualifications review and protection (e 3 letter of credit, bond, or quali8 cations review. Some states and findings for electric utilities that are selfinsurance), from the time that the mualdpalities identified potential legal applymg for constructica permits or Commission first permits ownership.
conflicts between certain provisions of operating licenses for production or possession, and storage of special the proposed rulemaking and state law.
utilization facilities. The Commissien is nuclear material at the site of the A summary of the comments is also amending its regulations to require nuclest reactor."
pr 6ented below. nose 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
~
Ixtter of credit. bond, or selfinsurance).
beals in the Atomic Energy Act of1954 designetion PR-50 (46 FR 41786). by from the tinte that the Commission first as amended ("AEA") for the financial writing to: Office of the Secretary. U.S.
i Issues an operating license for the qualifications regulations and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I nuclear reactor.
discussion in Public Service Company o/ Washington. D.C. 20555.
sepaCTIVE DATE:For amendments New Hompshire.et al. (Seabrook A.Mcing or elimindinNhe I
eliminatma financisl qualifications Station. Units 1 and,*2). Cll-78-1. 7 NRC Commission 's financiol qualifications review (12.104. Sections VI and VIII of 1 (1978)( 'Seabrook ). In that decision review. Rose arguing against reducing ad r elimina e Commission's
[
Appendix A to Part 2. Il2.4,50.2.
[
{ropoe d
Mb financial que cabons 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 50.401. Mar. 31.1982. For amendments establishing on site property damage health and safety concerns at nuclear can meet the financial demands of l
insurance requirement (lI 50.54(w) and power plants. However because the constructing and opereting nuclear Commission believed that there are plants. Citing Seabrook. WPPSS. DC.
50.57) June 291982. In accordance with matters important to safety which may South Texas and other examples.
the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.
(44 U.S C. 3507). the reporting provision be affected by financial considerations, commenters maintain that utilities often that is included in paragraph (w)(5) of it requested comments regarding the have experienced and will continue to 150 54 has been submitted for approval type of NRC financial review that would experience difficulty in raising funds to to the Office of Management and Budget focus effectively on considerations that cover capital, operating, and (OMB). It is not effect2ve until OMB might adversely affect safety.
maintenance costs (particularly in approval has been obtained.
II. Public Comments on the Proposed periods of high interest rates and POA FURTHER INFOResaT10N COef7ACT:
Rule overcapacity) whether or not such costs can be recovered in the rate base Jim C. Petersen. Office of State Over too comments were received on Programs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the proposed rulemaking and have been CW o et r se r o er d tes.
Commission. % a shington, D.C. 20555 categorized as follows:
Secon these commenters maintain that (telephone 301-492-9883).
Private citizens.-es comments recefved the inability to recover all costs suPPLEsstNTARY INFOR8dAT10sc Public interest groupe-3o comments received provides an incentive for utilities to Insurance groupe-2 comments received skimp on important safety components tagal c' unsel-4 comments received i
1. Background
o l
Governc: ental organizations and and quality assurance standards. Somc On August 18.1961. the Commission individuale-to comments received commenters die the discussion of l
published a notice of pro sed Utilities and utility groups-te comments financial disincentives in the IZogovin I
rulemaking in the Fede Register (46 received Report (Ihree Afile Is/ond: A Report to n 41786) concerning requirements for Architect. engineers and contractors-2 the Commission and the Public. Mitchell financial qualincations review and comments received Rogovin. Director, January 19e0) to findings for electric utilities that are A!! private citizen comments and all support their views. Another commenter applying for permits or licenses for but two public interest group comments suggests that utilities will be tempted to i
production or utilization facilities. As oppose reducing or eliminatin2 the lower wages which would lead to higher proposed, the rule would have:
Commission's financial qualification turnover and, thus. to employment of (1) Ehminated entirely financial review requirements. However, they inadequately trained personnel.nird, qualifications review requirements for generally support imposing immediate commenters maintain that NRC construction permit applicante; and decommissioning financing inspection efforts and capabilities are 1
- =,. -.
F;d:r:! Register / Vcl. 47. NA 62 / Wednesday. March 31.1e82 / Rules and Regulations g
13751 i.mdequate to provide sufficient indicated its support for the sebatance the importance elderammiscioning assurance of safety. Esen if violations of the proposed rule-elimination af the fundmg to public health and safety, but are found. some commenters argue that financial qualifications review because rather recognissa that any actson on NRC enforcement efforts are of the lack of any demonstrable Imk deconsmissioning la more appropriate in inadequate. Fourth. the commenters between public health and safety the context of the generic rulemaking assert that the financial quahfacations concems and a utility's abelty to make now being conducted. Until that tsma.
resiew function la atstutorily required the requisite financial showing.
the Commission has condudad that it is b) 42 U.S C. 2232(a). (c) and (d).
De actual fmancial situation premature to include any final decision Further. many of those arguing against analyzed in that case has not changed.
on decommissioning in this innal rule on ehminating the financial quahfications nere is no evidence that the safety of financial qualifications. Decessa the reWew recommend that the Comm'ssion the public has been adversely affected generic decommissioning rule la should at least retaan that portion ref the by Public Service Company of New scheduled to be published in 1982 and review pertaining to decornmaasioning Hampshire's (PSCNH) difficulties in since all licensees will be required Io The) state that the ongoing obtaining financing. It is true that to meet any financial requirements decommissioning 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 m requirement to demonstrate fmancial such action does not have any temporarily eliminating conalderation of capabitity to decomtrussion a nuclear demonstrable link to any safety decommissioning funding frem licensing production on utabzation facihty safely problems. Similarly. citing WPPSS*
activities. Moreover. if decommissioning and espeditious!y. Man) expressed the expenence is not convincing. because financing issues were~contiriued to be Cew that the genent decommissionmg WPPSS* response (and that of most other allowed m current beensing stud) would not be completed in a utilities encountering financial proceedings, two undesirable efreets renon.b:e time, difficulties) has been to postpone or may result. First. there would be en B contrast, those fasoring the cancel their plants actiona clearly not increased chance that findings in such 3
Commanon's proposed reduction or inimical to public health and safety cases might contradict evolving chmmation of the fmancial under the Atomic Energy Act.
Commission policy in this area Seconc.
quJ.s.t.ans rew, f action generally As to the third point raised in one positive gain from the final rule support the Commission's reasonmg that opposition to the proposed rule. In the would be countered. in that there could such a reuew has done httle toidentify absence of facts to the contrary the be expected to be httle. lf any, reduction substantae health and safety problems Commission cannot accept unsupported in the contentions before the hcensing at nuc! car pow er p;.nts and that the statements that. as a general matter its boards on financial quahfications Commiss:on's inspection and inspection and enforcement efforts are issues, thereby not significantly enforcement actaities prodde more inadequate. The examples that reducing the time and effort devoted to effectn e pruettion of pubbc health and commenters cite (e g. South Texas) those issues.
safety. Most ut;hties and their appear to substantiate. rather than B Mandatoryprepertyinsurancefor associates support complete elimination undercut, the Commission's view that decontaminal on Comments are of the fmancial quahfications review, any Wolations of safety regulations are similarly divided on the issue of includmg prods.ons pertaining to being found and corrected and that. in requirmg on site property insurance to decomm;ssionmg These commenters any es ent. such violations cannot be cover decontaminat2on empenses rnamtam that. if any regulations relating shown to ariselrom a Lcensee's alleged resulting from an accident. Dose who to the financing of decommissioning are lack of fmancial quahfications.
support keeping the fmancial adop'ed. they should await completion With respect to the fmal assertion that quahfications redew generall) support of the Ccmmission's generic rulemakmg the fmancial quahfications review requiring a utiht) to demonstrate proof on decommissionmg.
function is statutorily mandated. Section ofits abibly to clean up after an The Commission has received no 182a of the AEA. 42 U.S.C. 2232(a),
accident. The Commission interprets comments to persuade it to change clearly indicates that such funct2on is these comments as supportJng i
s'Fmhcantly its taasoning on the within the Commlasjon's discretionary mandatory property insurance insofar i
proposed f: nan-ia! quahhcatiens rule.
authority, but is not mandated. As noted as it cos ers accident cleanup costs. The As mdicated above, many of those in the proposed rule, this interpretation other corrurenters favoring elimination opposmg the proposed rule change have of Section 182a has been approved by of the financial quahhcations rule concluded that experience with the United States Court of Appeals for generally either (1) oppose mandatory Seabrock. WPPSS and other plants the First Circuit in New Eng/and coverage outnght because of recent self.
demonstrates the close connection Coaht/on on Nac/cor po#uvon v. NRC, initiated moves by the utihty industry to betw een f:nancial quahfications and 582 F.2d 87. 93 (1978) affirming the obtain insurance or. (2) favor substants.1 pubhc heahh and safety. The NRC's SeabrooA decision, mod;fication of the rule to clanfy Commission disag*ees As to the first On balance, a8ter careful several of its provisions.
romt ra: sed by commenters opposing consideration of the commenta ne first group of commenters do not ehmmation of the financial submitted and of the factors discussed generally state their reasons for favorms quahhcations review, the Commission in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
mandatory insurance except for an dees not fmd any reason to consider. in the Commission has elected to undefined and non.quantifiable general a sacuum, the general abihty of utthties promulgate the first of the two benefit in protecting pubbc health and to fmance the construction of new altematis es outlined in the proposed safety. Some indicated that the amount Feneration facilities Only when joined rule. l.e., eliminate the flaancial of insurance currently available is not with the issue of adequate protection of quahfications review of electric utilities sufficient to cover accidents such as the pubhc health and safety does this entirely at the CP and OL stages.
30-2. However, because of recentiv l
issue become pertinent. As to this, the includmg elimination of any announced increases in the amount of commenters'second point. the consideration 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 l
Tcderal Register / Vcl. 47. No. a2 / Wednesday. March 31,1sa2 / Rules and Regul:tions i
13752 i
concern mey not be as great as might Commission disagrees with the position e othority to require sech additional otherwise be the case.
taken by some commenters thatit is information la ladividual cases as may As indicated above, the second group unfair to many owners of smaller powse be necessary for the Commission to of commenters--primarily utilities and reactors to require insurance yestly deteralsa whether an opphostian their representatives--object more to exceeding the cost of repladas the abould be tad or denied oe whether the wording of certain provisions of the facility. A DC-2 type accident could a licanas be snodtfled or revskad.
proposed on. site property damage well require coverase approa
$1 See, for example, the fourth eseismos of insurance rule than to b requirement billion. no saatter what the Sec6antsaa of the AEA.Simuarly,as 6tself. Several commenters recognize value or size of the facility.no change in the pmeent powere of the that the practical effect of requiring Commission expects that the requir:d Commiolon with regard to the Saannial mandatory insurance has been reduced, insurance will cover reasonable quah8cadone review of sea-soksw particularly since the DC-2 seddent.
decontamination and cleanup costa appucanta for Part 30 hornan wGlbe because most utilities will buy whatever associated with the property damage made.In addition. an exception to or amount of coverage is offered, within ruulting from an acddent at the walver from the rule would be possible ressorable limits, as a matter of good licensed facility Until completion of to requin the submiselon of financial business judgment.Other commenters studies evaluating the cost of cleaning information from a particular electric indicate that the Commission e up ecddents of v severity,it is adh applicant if spedal dicumstances estimates of annual premiums required prudent to require or a!! power reacsors own Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.75g in
- M for a typical reactor may have been a reasonable amount ofinsurance for an ladividuallicensing hearing.
underststed. Estimeted premiums for decontamination expense B.Procticallmpocss. Also as
- 3. Several persons commented that indicated above and in the proposed coverage currently available (i e., $375 reactor licensees should not be required I
or $450 million) are 53 million per year to maintain on. site property damage rule, the Commission continues to In hgnt of these comments and for the insurance until the operating license has expect that the final rule will, in normal for a typical two.umt site.
reasons stated in the propeo d rule, the been received. With fuel merely stored circumstances, reduce the time and Commission has decir% w retain the at a reactor, the chance of an acddent effort which applicanta, licensees, the requirement in the final rule that electric requiring extensive decontamination la NRC staff and NRC adjudicatory boards util ties must have on. site property extremely remote.De Commission devote to reviewing the applicant's or damage insurance, but several agrees and has changed the rule licensee's financial qualiScations.ne mo&fications has e been made pursuant accordingly, so that auch insurance need rule will eliminate staff review in cases to the comments received. The following be in force only when the utility is where the appucant is an electric utility, changes have been incorporated into the licensed to operate the reactor.
presumed to be able to finance activities
- 4. Several Texas utilities commented to be authorized under the permit or text of the final rule on property that the Texas constitution (and, bcease.
insurance:
- 1. The definition of " maximum apparently, the Louisiana and Idaho C. License Amendments. De available amount" has been clarified.
constitutions) prohibits certain elimination by this rule of the finandal This term could have been interpreted to municipal utihties from purchasing qualifications review for electric utility mean that utilities would be required to insurance either offered by mutual applicants also applies to any electric l
switch their insurance coverage to the insurance companies or involving utilities that become co-owners via carrier offering t).e greatest amount at retroactive 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 concerne.
owners of production or utilizatioc 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 other electric utilities a portion of the insurer that decides to enter this market. the licensee to obtain not only initial ownership in the fadhty. NormaUy, an l
Finally, the " maximum available" could insurance but also subsequent increaus amendment request is then filed, which increment no matter offered. Another suggested that many seeks to add the new partner u co-have included anf er how restrictive the regulated utilties may have difficulty in owner and co-licensee. For the purposes I
how highly price I
terms and conditions.The Commission's obtaining approval to purchase o
e rule, simHar to the sbaattu intent is neither to disrupt the insurance insurance within 90 days.De relating to prelicensing antitrust review markets by forcing utilities to awitch Commission has revised the rule to of then new owners, the amendment their insurance carriers unnecessarily reflect its view that 90 days is a request comprises the initiallicense nor to require utilities to obtain reasonable tfme in which to take application by the new, prospective co-insurance under unreasonable terms reasonable steps to obtain both initf al owner, enn though the amedmet and conditions.The rule has been and any additional on. site property request may actually be filed by the changed to clarify the Commission's damage insurance.
present licensee and owner. Eq., Detroit 6.The phrase "commercia!!y Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic intent specifically in i 50.54(w).
available" insurance could have been Power Plant Unit No.2), ALAB-475,7
- 2. Some commenters maintained that the proposed rule should apply only to construed to exclude insurers such as NRC 752,755, n.7 (1978). Since the same insurance covering decontamination of a NMI.and NEII.De Commission financial quahfications review facility suffering an accident and not to recognizes this possible but erroneous considerations apply to all electric "all risk" property damage insurance.
interpretation and has changed the stihty applicants, regardlus of the Because decontamination insurance is wordm' s of the rule accordingly, particular manner in which their the Commission's only concern from the III.Other Considerations application is tendered to the NRC,it point of view of protecting pub!!c health A.Requirementfor Additional should be clear that this final rule and safety, coverase to replace the 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 Comminion does not amendment that would,if granted, authority, By the same reasoning, the intend to waive or relinquish its residual include a new electric utility as a co-
~
s 1
)
reder:1 Register / Vcl. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31. 1982 / Ru)ee and Regulations 13753 owner er.d co-licensee in a production
- 1. 9H11).De date on which the sec. e. Pub. L el-saa as Stat.14r2 (42 U.S C or utilization facihty.
information collection requirements of 21381 1
TV. Conclusion tMs rule become deche, union i
In summary. the Commission has advised to the contrary, accoetlingly,
- 2. In $ 2.4. new paragraph (s)is added concluded that the adoption of the rule reflects inclusion of the 80 day penod to read as follows-'
which the Act allows for such review.
St.4 co n seans.
rs ces as et t
Regulatory Flexibility Castincaties As used in this part.
demonstrating financial qualifications of in accordance with the Regulatory electnc utihtiee that are applying 1o Flexibihty Act of1980. 5 U.S.C. 806(b).
construct and operate nuclear the NRC hereby certifin that this rule (s)" Electric utility" means any entity production and utilization facilities will not have a significant economic that generates or distributes electricity and which recovers the costs of this without reducing the protection of the impact on a substantial number of small electricity, either directly or indirectly, pubhc health and safety. nis portion of entities. The rule reduces certain minor the rule will be effective immediately Information collection requirements on through rates established by the entity upon pubhcation. pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
the owners and operators of nuclear itself or by a separate regulatory authority. Investor. owned utilities 533(d)(1), since the rule is expected to power plants licensed pursuant to including generation or distribution reheve significantly the obligation of sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic certain apphcants with respect to Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 subsidiaries. pubhc utility districts.
information required for construction municipalities, rural electric permits and operstmg licenses, and als9 U.S.C. 2133,2134b These electric utility cooperatives. and state and federal companies are dominant in their service to reduce the amount of unnecessary, time. consuming staff review and areas. Accordingly, the companies that agencies. including associations of any adjudicatory proceedings. Although the own and operate nuclear power plante of the foregoing. are included within the are not within the definition of a small meaning of " electric utihty."
rule will be apphed to ongo licensing business found in section 3 of the Small
- 3. In ( 2.104, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and proceedmgs now pending an toissues Business Act.15 U.S.C. 632, or within introductory paragraph (c)(4) are revised or contentions therein. Union of the Small Business Size Standards set A' " 'd a' foll * *-
ConcernedScientises v. AEC 499 F.2d forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
~
1069 (D C. Cir.1974). It should be clear 52.104 36et6ce of hearing that the NRC neither intends nor Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of expects that the rule will affect the 1954, as amended, the Energy scope of any issues or contention
- Reorganizatfori Act of1974 as amended.
(b),,,
l related to a cost / benefit analysis and section 553 of Title 5 of the United (1) * *
- performed pursuant to the National States Code, the following amendments (iii) Whether the applicant is Environmentel Policy Act of1969. either to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 are published financially qualified to design and in pending or future licensing as a document subject to codification.
construct the proposed facihty, except a
proceedmgs for nuclear power plants.
PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR that this subject shall not be an issue if Under NEPA. the issue is not whether DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS the apphcant is an electric utihty the apphcant can demonstrate 1.The authority citation for Part 2 seeking a license to construct a reasonable assurance of covering reads as follows:
production or utilization facihty of the certain projected costs. but weather is Authority: Secs 161.181 se Stat. sea. 953 type described in 150.21(b) or $ 50.22.
merely what costs to the applicant of (42 U.S C 2201. 22311. sec.1et. es amended, constructing and operating the plant are Pub. L 87-e25,76 Stat. 400 l42 U.S C 2241).
(c) * *
- to be put into the cost. benefit balance.
oc. 20L Pub L 93-43e. as Stat.1242. as As is now the case, the rule of reason amended by Pub. L 94-76. 80 Stat. 413 (42 (4) Whether the applicant is technically and fmancially quahfied to will cont'nue to govern the scope of dfrn e ;b engage in the activities to be authorized what costs are to be included in the u
3.
66 balance, and the resulting Stat. eso. e32. e35. ese. e37. s38. as amended by the operating license in accordance determinations may still be the subject (42 U.S C. 2073. 20p3. 2111. 2133. 2134. 21351:
with the regulations in this chapter, sec.102. Pub. L 91-90. e3 Stat. e53 (42 U S C except that the issue of financial of htigation. Thus imancial 43321. nc act se Stat.1248 (42 U.S C 58711 quahfications shall net be considered by
.quahfications would not be expected t'o sections 2102. 2.104. 2105. 2.721 also leeued the presiding officer in an operstmg become an issue or contention in an under secs. 102.103.104.105.183.1so. es Stat.
38 9 e am d d 42 U.S C license heanns if the applicant is an NRC bcensing proceeding msofar as ye electric utility seeking a license to NEPA might be msched.
The Commission has also concluded 2 200-2 206 a!so issued under sec. tes, es Stat.
operate a production or utilization that adoption of the on site property e55142 U S C 223el sec. 20s. se Stat 1246 (42 facihty of the type described in U S C 5846) Sections 2 600-2 6o6. 2 730, l 50.23(b) or i 50.22; damage msurance requirement. as 2.772 also issued under sec.102. Pub. t rnodified, will better ensure that 91-190. e3 Stat. 853 (42 U.S C 4 332).
adequate protection of the health and Sections 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under 4 In Appendix A of Part 2. Sections safety of the pubhcis achieved.His 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, 2.770 also issued under 5 U.S C 557.
read as follows:
1984 Sech n 2.790 also issued under sec.103-Appendix A-Statement of Genera! Policy Paperwork Reduction Act Statement eton:2e S N afoi ued under 5 c,"
j' The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
$ $b' 'be" jt.b hUS C operatins Ucenses for Production and n,
has submitted this rule to the Office of d
433:1 Section 2 aos also issued under 5 U.S C.
Utilizati n recibties for which a Heartog 1s Management and Budget for such 553 and sec. 29. Pub. L 65-256. 71 Stat. Sr9 as Requir Under os 189 A Ithe A m nic renew as may be appropriate under the
)
P4;erwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub ernended by Pub L 95-200. e1 Stat.1483 (42 Energy Act of H54.as hadd U S C 2039) Append 2x A is also issued under 4
. agssa 13754 Federal Register / Vcl. 47. No. 62 / Wedn:sday. M:sch 31, 1982 / Rules and Regulations VI. Postheoring Proceedings. laduding the cooperatives, and state and federal of constructing or operating a facility Initial Decision agencies, including associations of any must also incbde information showing:
of the foregoing. are included within the (1)De legal and Saancial (c1 ' *
- meaning of electric utility."
relationships it has or proposes to have ll) * * *
- 7. In i 50.33. peregraph (f) is revised to with its stockholders or owners:
Un) Whether the apphcant is financiaUy read as foDows:
(U) Del
- financial ability to meet any quahfied to design and conatruct the contrachal ob!!gation to the entity 88wf,8,ga, # 'P" '" " 8'"'I which they have incurnd or propose to kaft n be an7s's'ue 1 e p an en incur and electnc utaht) seeking a 11canae to conatruct a production or utihsation fadllry of the type Each app!! cation must state:
(111) Any otherinformation canaldered distribed in 150.21[b! or 80.2t necessary by the Commission to enablo I
(f)(1)Information sufficient to it to determine the applicant's Snancial dernonstrate to the Commission the quab8 cations.
. vtil Prmedures Applicable to operating Anancial quel 1$ cations of the applicant (3) Except for electric utility IJcense Procmadings to carry out. in accordance with applicants for construction permite and i
?
reguladone in this chapter, the acMn operating hcanoes, the Coinmisalon may I
(bl...
for which the permit or hcense is sought. request an estabbahed entity or newly-(4) Whether the applicant is technicaUy cnd financial!) quahned to engage in the However, no information on Snancial formed entity to submit addational or cctmties to be authorized by the operstma qualifications, including that in more detaued information respecting its bcense in accordance with the Comrnission's paragraphs (f)(1) (1) and (ii) of this financial arrangements and status of resdahons. except that the issue of Anancial section. is required in any application, funds if the Commission considers this quahficanons shan not be considered by the nor shaU any financial review be information appropriate.nis may board J d e apphtant is an electne utihty conducted. lf the appbcant is an electric include information regarthng a f tEeNe nt$"m utihty app!! cant for a !! cense to licensen's abihty to continue the conduct i
u ! ss on fac e
construct or operate a production or of the activities authorized by the l'o 21(b) or 150.22 utlhzation facility of the type d? scribed hcense and to permanently shut down in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22.
the facility and mamtain it in a safe PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF (i)If the application is for a condition.
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION construction permit, the applicant shall submit information that demonstrates
- 8. In $ 50 40. paragraph (b)is revised FACILITIES the applicant possesses or has to read as foUows:
- 5. The authority citation for Part 50 is reasonable assurance of obtaining the revised to read as follows:
funds necessary to cover estimated
$ 50.40 Common standseda.
Authorit): Secs 103.104 161.182.183.189.
construction costs and related fuel cycle Se Stat.936. 93*. 948. 953. 954. 955. 956. a s costs.The applicant & ball submit (b) De applicant is technically and amended (42 U S C. 2133. 204 2201. 2232.
estimetes of the total construction costs financiaUy qualified to engage in the l
2233. 2239:. secs 201 202. 206. ea Stat 1243.
of the facility and related fuel cycle proposed activities in accordance with oth e oie Sec n 50 e a s's" ]"
costs, and shallindicate the source (s) of the regulations in this chapter. However, funds to cover these costs.
no consideration of financial under see 122 68 Star 939(42 U.S C. 2152).
Sectens 50 8N50 el also issued under sec.
(ii)If the application is for an quahfications is necessary for an 164 68 Stat 954 as a:nended {42 U.S C. 2234).
operating license, the applicant shaU afectric utibty applicant for a hcense for Sections 5010m50102 :ssued under sec.186.
submit information that demonstrates a production or utilization facility of the 68 Stat 955 (42 l' S C 2236). For the purposes the applicant possesses or has type described in $ 50.21(b) or $ 50.22.
of sec 223 to Stat 958. as amended (42 U.S C.
reasonable assurance of obtaining the h4e 54 aid under'sec.
funds necessary to cover estimated
- 9. In 150.54, a new paragraph (w)is operation costs for the period of the added to read as foDows:
a re s 1elb 68 Stat 948 as arrended (42 U S C.
hcense, plus the estimated costa of 2201(bl) Il 50 to [b) and (c) and 50 54 are issued under see tell sa Stat 949.as permanently shutting the facility down g 50.54 Conditions of,5 censes.
l amended 142 U S C 2201D)) and il 50 55(e),
and maintaining it in a safe condition.
l 50 59(bl. 50 70 50 71. 5012. and 501a are The applicant shall submit estimates for (w) Each electric utility licensee under I
issued under sec 1eto. 68 S at 950. as total annual operating costs for each of this part for a production or utthzation amended (42 t' S C 2201to)).
the first five years of operation of the facility cf the type desenbed in 6 In i 50 2 a new paragraph (x)is facility and estimates of the costs to
$ 50.21(b) or $ 50.22 shall, by June 29.
8 added to read as follcw s permanently shut down the facility and 1962. take reasonable steps to obtain on-maintain it in a safe condition.He site property damage insurance 550.2 Denntoons.
appl cant shall also indicate the available at reasonable costs and on l
As used in this part.
sourcels) of funds to cover these costa.
reasonable terms from private sources An applia.ation to renew or extend the or to demonstrate to the satisfaction of i
(x) " Electric utility" means any entity term of an operating license must the Commission that it possesses an that generates or distnbutes electricity include the same financialinformation equivalent amount of protection and which recovers the costa of this as required in an application for an covering the f acility. Provided. that:
l electricity, either directly or indirectly, initiallicense.
(1)This insurance must have a through rates estabbshed by the entity (2) Except for electric utility minimum coverage limit no less than the itself or by a separate regulatory applicants for construction permits and combined total of (i) that offered by authority. Insestor-owned utilities, operating licenses, each application for either American Nuclear Insurers (AN1) includ:ng generation or distribution a construction permit or an operating and Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance subsidianes. public utility districts, license submitted by a newly formed Pool (MAERP) jointly or Nuclear Mutual municipahties. rural electric entity organized for the pnmary purpose Limited (NMI.); plus (ii) that offered by l
a Ted:r:1 Register / Vcl. 47. Ns. 62 / W;dnesd:y. M: ch 31, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 13755 Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited financial protection it maintains and the 12.In Appendix M to rart so, INElt). the Edison Electric Institute sources of this insurance or protecdon.
paragraph 4.(b)is evised to read as (EEI). ANI and MAERP jointly, or NMI.
- 10. In 150 57, paragraph (a)(4)is fo!!ows:
as excess property insurance:
revised to read as follows:
Appende M Standerosades of Demip.
(2) The licensee shall, within ninety Manufocewe of Nuclear Power Rascasre, IM7 d
Constmenies and Opere6en af Nacinar Power (90) days of any increases in policy Readers ManufM w se limits for primary or excess coverage (a) * *
- that it has obtained pursuant to this (4) The applicant is technically and paragraph. take reasonable steps to financially quahfied to engage in the obtain these increases; and activities authorized by the operating h)m),,hndaunformanon e=Wrtd (3) When a licensee is prohibited from license in accordance with the pursuant to I so.33(f) shell be directed at a purchasing on site property damage regulations in this chapter. However, no demonstration of the financial qualifications insurance because of state orlocallaw, findmg of financial qualifications is of the appbcant for the manufacrunna license the licensee shall purchase the specific necessary for an electric utility to carry out the manufactunna act2vity for amount of such insurance fcund by the applicant for an operating license for a f*h the beense is sought.
NRC to be reasonably available to that production or utilization facility of the licensee, or to obtam an equivalent t>Pe described in 150.21(b) or 150.22.
y$NwasWon.D C, this 24th day of amount of protection; and For b Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(4)The licensee shall report on April 1 3pp,g g) go.w g, g, of each year to the NRC as to the 1 Part is amended by removing o( eComnussi n present lesels of this insurance or anAsie coes rose 43-en t