ML20052B684

Motion to Dismiss Kansans for Sensible Energy Contention Re Financial Qualifications & to Dismiss Intervenor Since Financial Qualifications Contention Is Intervenor Only Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20052B684
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	04/23/1982
From:	Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205030449
Download: ML20052B684 (11)

Text

April 23, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY &

Docket No. 50-482 KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, b

Unit No. 1)

!FIECEIVER k

SIA'/3 19 h ~g I

NRC STAFF MOTION

~

gym %

TO DISMISS KASE CONTENTION A

mum *acxmm

/

\\\\ '

mc l -

INTRODUCTION

~

On March 31, 1982, the Commission published a final rule, effective imediately, 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 Kase's Contention as stated by the Board is as follows:

Due to increased and underestinated costs the applicant does not have the financial ability to either operate or decommission the Wolf Creek facility.

07 T 6 t

y'/7 6#

l 8905030 1

, regulation eliminating consideration of financial qualifications in pending operating license proceedings, the NRC Staff moves for the dismissal of the Kase Contention as set forth more fully below.

t DISCUSSI01 In light of the Commission's elimination of financial qualification issues from nuclear licensing proceedings, Kase's contention is no longer a litigable issue in this case. The Appeal Board recently up, held a Licensing Board's denial 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 con-i struction 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 j

from being litigated in operating license proceedings such as the one at

[

bar. Accordingly, the Licensing Board need not and should not adjudicate the financial qualifications issues raised in Kase's contention and should 1

dismiss that contention on the ground that it raises issues that are not to be considered under the Commission's amended regulations.

i CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff hereby noves that the financial qualifications contention be immediately dismissed from the proceeding without i

e e

d

. further consideration. Since this contention is Kase's only contention, the Board should also rule that Kase is no longer a party in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, 24td.

lose Myr Karman Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of April,1982

I 13750 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31.1982 / Rules and Regule.tions I

NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY (2)(1) Also eliminated entirely these requirements and also requiring l

COMMISSION requirements for operating license L-mes to denonstrate their abihty to l

applicants; or dean up after an acddent. By contrast.

10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 (11) Retoined these requirements for stIDties. stility groups, and ut1Bty i

operatics licesse applicants to the contractore support ocamplets l

I l

Elimination of Revtew of Finendal exten' t~ney require submission of

=hminsting the Cocunisolon's Ouatl!) cations of Doctric Utslume in informat'on conurning the costa of ec d$ cations coquirements, incisang 1Jcenairm Hearinga For Nuclear Power permanen'.ly shuttirg down the fac2ty decomminalonia;g. Further, stinties and and maintaining it in a safe condition their represente$ves generaDy oppsea Plants (i.e deccmmissio costs).

requidag mandatory pmport} damsga N % ry Concurrently, the mmission insurance. Comments from lega! conneel i

i Aotwcy:

resected the interee~ and b '-- -

proposed amending its regulations to generaD[their utility, insuranc. oc I

actioec Final rule.

ivguire, on an intedm Easta, power eiews o reaetor licentees to maintain the public interest clients. Gcvernmental I

l r:dNuclear Regulatory maxbum amount of sommerdally organisciens and in.tividuals reflected l

Conunission is amending its agulations evallable on. site property dama#*

a spectrun. 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.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 identified potential legal applyms for construction permits or Commission first permits ownership.

conflicts between certain proviafons of p

operating licenses for production or possession, and storage of special the proposed rulemaking and state law.

l C

utilization facihties. The Commission is nuclear material at the site of the A summary of the comments is also amending its regulations to require nuclear reactor."

presented below.Those 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 i

I l

letter 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 amented ("AEA") for the financial writing to: Office of the Secretary. U.S.

issues an opersting license for the qualifications replations and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

nuclear reactor.

dacussion in Puolic Service Compan,y of Washington. D.C. 20555.

f((]#f 4 ## # "'"#

appscTivt part:For amendments 2) 78-7NRC Commission 's fmancici quotifications eliminating financial qualifications 1 W8WSeabrooPJ In @at dec'ision seriew.Those arguing against reducing i

review (f ? D4. Sections VI and VIII of or eliminating the Commission's j

An Appendix A w part 2. I12.4. 50.2.

{ pose d

f financial qualifications review make Appendix C to part 50. Appendix M. dd existing financial qualifications review four major points. First, they discount paragraph 4.(b) to part 50. I 50.33(f). a has done little to identify eubstantial NRC's presumption that public utilities I 50.40). Mer. 31.1982. For amendments health and safety concerns at nuclear can meet the finandal demands of

{

estabhshing on site property damage Power plants. However, because the constructing and operating nuclear i

insurance requirement (l150.54(w) and Commission believed that there are plants. Citing Seabrook. WppSS. TMI.

l 50.57). June 291982. In accordance with matters important to safety which may South Texas and other examples.

the paperwork Reduction Act of1980.

be affected by finandal 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 150.54 has been submitted for approval focus effectively on considerations that cover capital. operating. and t

l to the Office of Management and Budget 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 overcapadty), whether or not such costs ron runTurn inronuaTion cowTacT-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 oo se r ove d tes.

Commis sion. % ashington. D.C. 20555 categorized as follows:

d. hoe m e e d M (telephone 301-492-9883)-

Private citizens-ee comments received the inability to recover all costs Public interest groupe-30 comments received pro.videe an incentive for utilities to surruutwTany wonedATiosc insurance groupe-2 comments recalved skunp on important safety components Issal c' unsel-a comments recefved and quality assurance standards. Some L Backgiound o

Governmental organizations and ion indMouale-.to comments received commenters die the discussion of On August 18.1981, the Commiss.

published a notice of proposed Utilitses and utility groups-te comments financial disincentives in the Rogovin rulemaking in the Federal Register (46 recstved Report (Three AfileIsland: A Repoif to FR 41786) concerning requirements for Architect-engineers and contrsetore-a the Coma:ission and the Public. Mitchell comments recefved Rogovin. Direcior. January 1980) to finandal qualifications review and findinsi for electric utilities that are All private dtizen comments and all support their views. Another commenter applying for penmits or licenses for but two public interest group comments suggests that utiJties will be tampted to production or utilisation facilities. As oppose reducing or eliminating the lower wages whicn would lead to higher Proposed the rule would have:

Commission's finandal qualification turnover and, thus, b employment of

1) nmmated entirely financial review requirements. However, they inadequately trained personnel. Third.

I qu(alifications review requirements for generally support imposing immediate commenters maintair. that NRC construction permit applicants; and decommissioning financing inspection efforts and capabilities are

s Fedtral Registir / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednendry. March 31.1es2 / Rulis and Regulations 13751 1

indequate to provide sufficient indicated its support for the substance the innportance af dar-minalaning assurance of safety. Even if violations of the proposed ruW!imination of the fundmg to pub!!c health and salaty, but are found. some commenters argue that financial qualifications review because rather recognises that any actnam on NRC enforcement efforts are of the lack of any demonstrable hnk decomaalmioning is isoee appropriata in ina dequate. Fourth. the commenters between public health and safety the context of the generic mismaking assert that the financial quahfications concems and a stility's abftty to make now bebg coeducad. Until that case, sesiew function is statutorily required the requisite finaneist showing the Commission has concinded het it is by 42 U.S C. g232(a). (c) and (d).

De actual fmancial altuation premature isinclude any finaldesision Turther, many of those arguing against analyzed in that case has not changed.

or decommissioning in this Innalcule on ehminating the fiaancial quehfications here is no evidence that the safety of finsncial qualifications. Because the

(

resiew recommand that the Commission the public has been adversely affected generic decom:nissioning enle la should at least retain that portion of the by Public Service Company of New scheduled to be published la ssa2 and review pertaining to decommissioning.

Hampshire's 'PSCNH) difficulties in since alllicensees will be required to 1

They atate that the ongoing obteining financing. it is true that to meet any financial respirementa j

decommissioning rulemaking is no raise capital. PSCNH has sold part ofits imposed as a result of that rulemaking.

s.;bstitute fer an immediate general ownership in the Seabrook plant. but there should be Utile practical efect in regmrement to demonstrate fmancial such action does not have any temporarily eliminating consideration of i

capabihty to decommission a nuclear demonstrable link to any safety decommissioning funding from licensing production o utalization facility safely problems. Similarly. citing WPPSS*

activities. Moreover, if decommissioning and expeditiously. Man) expressed the experience is not convincing. because financing issues were' continued to be dew that the Seneric decommissioning WPPSS' response (and that of most other allowed in current licensing l

s ady would not be completed in a utilities encountering financial proceedings, two undesirable effec's re.sonab:e tune.

difhculties) has been to postpone or may result. First, there would be er.

B contrast, those favoring the cancel their plants. actions clearly not increased chance that findings in such l

3 Comnussion's proposed reduction or inimical to public health and safety cases might contradict evolving ehmmaticn of the fmancial under the Atomic Energy Act.

Commission policy in this area Second.

quahf.s.t.ons reGei, function generally As te the third point raised in one positive gain from the Bnal rule i

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 litt:e to identify absence of facts to the contrary, the be expected to be little. if any. reduction substa.tn e health and safety problems Commission cannot accept unsupported in the contentions before the licensing 1

at nucic ar pow er p:.nts and that the statements that. as a general matter its boards on financial qualifications Commissioniinspection and inspection and enforcement efforts are issues. thereby not significant'y enforcement activities provide more inadequate. ne examples that reducing the time and effort devoted to l

(

effectae protection of pubbe health and commenters cite (e.g., South Texas) those issues.

safet). Most utihties and their appear to substantiate rather than B. Mondatotypropertyinsurancefor associates support complete eliminatjen undercut. the Commission's view that decontaminotion. Comments are of the fmancial qualifications review, any violations of safety regulations are similarly divided on the issue of i

including prous;ons pertaining to being found and corrected and that,in requiring on. site property insurance to l

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 i

to the financing of decommissioning are lack of financial qualifications.

support keeping the fmancial adopted, they should await completion With respect to the fmal assertion that qualifications review generall> support of the Commission's generic rulemaking the fmanc2al qualifications review requiring a utiht) to demonstrate proof on 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 comments to persuade it to change clearly indicates that auch function is these comments as supporting I

significantly in reasoninF on the within the Commission's discretionary mandatory property insurance. insofar proposed fman. sal qualibcations rule.

authority, but is not mandated. As noted as it cos ers 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 182a has been approved by of the fmancialqualifications rule -

concluded that experience with the United States Court of Appeals for generally either (1) oppose mandatory Seabrook. WPPSS and other plants the First Circuit in New Entr/and coverage outright because of recent self.

demonstrates the close connection Cochtion on Nadear pollucon v.NRC initiated moves by the utility industry to i

betw een fmancial qualifications and 582 F.2d 87.93 (1978), affirming the obtain insurance or. (2) favor substantial public health and safety. The NRC's Seabrook decision.

modification of the rule to clarify Commission disag ees As to the first On balance, after careful several of its provisions.

pomt raised by commenters opposing consideration of the mmments

%e first group of commenters do not ehmination of the financial submitted and of the factors discussed generally state their reasons for favoring quahfications review.the Commission in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

mandatcry insurance except for an dces not find any reason to consider,in the Commission has elected to undefined and non.quantifiable general a vacuum.the general abihty of utihties promulgate the first of the two benefit in protecting public healta and to fmance the construction of new alternatis es outhned in the proposed safety. Some indicated that the amount generation faditties. Only when joined rule. l.e., eliminate the fiaancial ofinsurance currently available is not with the issue of adegaste protection of qualifications review of electric utilities sufficient to cover accidents such as the public health and safety does this entirely at the Cp and OL stages.

30-2. However because of eccentiv issue become pertinent. As to this, the including elimination of any announced incresses in the amount of commenters'second point, the considerstion of decommissioning coverage available and the continuing Commission in its SeabrooA deciolon funding His is not meant to discount evolution in the insurance markets, this j

i

__l

Tcderal Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31. 1982 / Rules and Regulations l

13752 l

concern may not be se great as might Commission diugrees with the poaltion authority to require each additional otherwise be the case.

taken by some commenters that it is infoemation in Individual casas as sesy As Indicated above, the second group unfair to many ownare of amaI!as power be necessary foe the t'a==f==8= to of commenters-primarily utihties and nactors to require insurance greatly detarmine wkther an appBcs4cn their representatives-object niore to excuding the cost of npladng the should be granted oc denied or whetbee the wording of certa!n provialons of the fadhry. A Th0-2 type accident could s license should be =wtined oc retaked.

proposed on-site peoperty damage weU require coverase appme 21 See, foe example, b fourth samtamos of l

insurance rule t'aan to Se nquirement billion. no matter what the ce Seedon ta2a d b AEA.

.se itself. Several commenters recognize value or sine of the fadhty.%*

change in the pneent powere of thei the practical effect of requiring Commission expects that the required Comission with regard to the Pamneial mandatory insurance has been reduced.

Insurance will cover reascuable qualhtions dw deco-particularly since the 30-2 acddent.

decontamination and cleanup m,et*

applicanu foe Part so!!cenaea be because most utilities will buy whatever anociated with the preperty damage mads. In addition, an es tion to oc a nount of coverage is offered, within resulting from an acddest at the walver fmm the tule won be pesa!Lle reasonable limits. as a matter of good licemed fac211ty. Until comp!stion of to"9uim the submisalon of financial businen judgment. Other commer.ters studies evaluating the cost of cleaning indicate that the Commission's up acddents of v severity. it is gg,

estimates of annualpremiums required prudent to require or all power reactors are down Pusuant to to CFR 2.758 in for a typical reactor may have been a nasonable amount ofinsurece for an individuallicensing hearing.

understated. Estimated premiums for decontaminatfon expense B.ProcticolImpacts. Also as

3. Several persons es.mented that indicated above and in the proposed coverage currently available(i.e $375 reactor licensees abould not be required or $450 million) are 53 million per year rule, the Commission continues to to maintain on. site property damage In hght of these comments and for the insurance until the operating license has expect that the final rule will,in normal for a typical two-unit site.

e reasons stated in the proposed rule, the been received. With fuel merely stored circumstances, reduce the time and effort which applicants. licensees. the

Commission has decided to retain the at a reactor, the chance of an acddent NRC staff and NRC adjudicatory boards requirement in the final rule that electric requin'ng extensive decontamination is devote to reviewing the applicant's or utilities must have on site property extremely remote.The Commission damage insurance, but several agrees and has changed the rule licensee's financial qualiScationa.De modifications 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 electnc utility, changes have been incorporated into the licensed to operate the reactor.

presumed to be able to finance edvities

4. Several Texas utilities commented to be authorized under the per.dt or text of the final rule on property that the Temso constitution (and.

Ifconse.

imurance:

1.The definition of" maximum apparently. the tauisians and Idaho C.14ceme Amendments.De avsflable amount" has been clarified.

constitutions) prohibits certain elimination by this rule of the financial This term could have been mterpreted to municipal utihties from purchasini qualifications review for electric utility mean that utilines would be rsquired to insurance either offered by mutual applicants also appliu to any electric switch their insurance coverage to the insurance companies or involdng utilities that become co-owners via carrier offering the g+estest amount at retroactive assessments.Re xis any particular time. Another Commission has revised the rule to

[,dm'p",'

g, time t ume al interpretation could be that utilities address these concerns, owners of production or utilization would be required to obtain coverage 8.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 oder electric utihbu a portion of 6e insurer that decides to enter this market. the licensee to obtain not only initial o*DerShip in the facihty. Normally, an

[

Finally. the " maximum available" could insurance but also subsequent increases amendment request is then filed, which have included any increment no matter offered. Another suggested that many seeks to add the new partner as co-how highly priced or how restnctive the regulated utilties may have difficulty in owner and co L,censee. For the purposes terms and conditions The Commisalon's obtaining approval to purchase of this rule, similar to the situation intent is neither to disrupt the insurance insurance within 90 days.De MlannS to prelicensing antitrust review markets by forcing utilities to switch Commission has revised the rule to of these new owners,the amendment their insurance carriers unnecessarily nflect its view that 90 days is a request comprises the initiallicense nor to require utilities to obtain nasonable 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 conditions The rule has been and any additional on. site property mquest may actually be filed by the changed to clanfy the Commission's damage insurance.

present licensee and owner. Eq., Detroit EL The phrase " commercially intent, specifically in i 50.54[w).

avsilable" insurance could have been Edison Conpany (Enrico Fermi Atomic

2. Some commenters maintained that Power Plant. Unit No. 2). A1.AB-475.7 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 FNI. and NEII. De Commission financial qualifications review f acility suffering an accident and not to reccsnizes this possible but erroneous considerations apply to all electric "all risk" property damage insurance.

interpretation and has changed the utihty applicants,regardless of the Because decontamination lasurance is wordmg of the rule accordingly.

particular manner in which their the Commisalon's only concern from the E Mar Considerations application is tendered to the NRC. It point of view of protecting public health A. Erquirementfor Additional should be clear that this final rule and safety, covarage in replace the existig facility on an "all risk" basis is Information. As indicated in the applies to Eny request for an proposed rule. the Commission does not amendment that would if granted, I

beyond the scope of the Commission's authority.By the same reasoning. the intend to waive or relinquish its ruidual include a new electric utility as a co-

l j

Tcdirst Regist:r / Vcl. 47. No. a2 / W dn:sday. M:rch 31, 1982 / Rul s cad Regulations 13753 owner and co. licensee in a production L 96-311).ne date on which the sec. es Pub. L 914att es Stat 24r2 (42 U.S C y

or utilization facility.

fnformation collection requirements of 2138).

fV. Conclusion this rule become eNeche, salesa e

advised to the contrary, accordingly,

2. In 12.4. new paragraph (s) !s added In summary, the Commission has reflects inclusion of the 80 day penod to read as follows-'

concluded that the adoption of the rule which the Act allows for auch review.

g3A comenena.

s ces as at th Regulatory FeexfEty Cartmcatine As used in tMa part, j

demonstrating floancial qualifications of In accordance with the Regulatory electnc utilities that are applying to F1exibility Act of1980. 5 U.S.C. so6(b).

(a) " Electric utility" means any entity construct and operste nuclear the NRC hereby certifies that this rule that generates or distributes electricity production and utilization facilities will not have a significant economic and which recovers the costa of this j

without reducing the protection of the impact on a substantial number of small electricity, either directly or indirectly.

public health and safety. This portio : of entities. De rule reduces certain minor through rates established by the entity the rule will be effective immediately informatien coUection requirements on itself or by a separate regulatory upon pubhr.ation, pursuant to 5 U.S C.

the owners and operators of nuclear authority. Investor-owned utilities i

533(d)(1). since the rule is expected to power plants licensed pursuant to including generation or distribution reheve sigrificantly the obligation of sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic subsidianes, public utility districts.

certain apphcants with respect to Energy Act of1954. as amended. 42 municipalities. rural electric information required for construction U.S.C. 2133,2134b. nese etectric utility cooperatives. and state and federal permits and operating licensea, and also companies are dominant in their service agencies, including associations of any to reduce the amount of unnecessary.

areas. Accordingly, the companies that of the foregoing. are included within the l

time. consuming staff review and own and operate nuclear power plante meaning of" electric utility."

l adjudicatory proceedings. Although the are not within the definition of a small rule will be applied to ongo licensing business found in section 3 of the Small

3. In 5 2.104 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and proceedings now pendmg an to issues 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 s I "'d "" fall **- '

ConcernedScientists v. AEC. 499 F.2d forth in 13 CTR Part 121.

12.104 Notice of fieering.

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 expects that the rule will affect the Reorganization' Act of tg74 as amended.

(b),,,

scope of any 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 fo to CFR Parts 2 and 50 are published financially qualified to design and

(

Environmental policy Act of 1969. either as a document subject to codification.

construct the proposed facihty, except in pending or future hcensms proceedmgs for nuclear power plants.

PART 2-RULES OF PRACT CE FOR that this subject shall not be an issue if Under NEPA. the issue is not whether DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS the applicant is an electric utility the apphcant can demonstrate

1. The authority citation for Part 2 seeking a license to construct a reasonable assurance of covering reads as gollows.

production or utihzation facihty of the type described in 150.21(b) or $ 50.22.

certain projected costs. but weather is Authority: Secs.161.181, as Sta t. pea. es3 merely what costs to the applicant of (42 U.S C 2201. 22311. ecc.191. as amended.

constructmg and operating the plant aye Pub. L a7-415. 7e Stat. 40s (42 U.S C 2241);

(c) * *

• to be put into the cost. benefit balance.

we. 201. Pub. L e3-438. as Stat.1242. as As is now the case,the rule of reason amended by Pub. L e4-79. se Stat. 413 (42 (4) Whether the applicant is 8

technically and fmancially qualified to will continue to govern the scope of

[ sue $derseca 53.Ns 1N1os.' engage in the activities to be authorized as what costs are to be included in the Siet. eso. 932. e35. e3a. e37 saa, as amended by the operating license in accordance balance. and the resulting (42 U.S c. 2073. 20es. 2111. 2133. 2134. r13s).

with the regulations in this chapter, determinations may still be the subject occ.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 453 (42 U.S C.

except that the issue of financial oflitigation Thus. fmancial 4332). **c. 301, se Stet.124e (42 U.S C sart).

quahfications shall not be considered by

.quahhcations would riot be expected t'o Sections 2102. 2.104. 2.105. 2.721 aleo issued the presiding officer in an operating become an :ssue or contention in an under secs 102.103.104.105-tas. tes. es Stat.

license heanng if the apphcant is an NRC bcensmg proceedmg insofar as e

oj389j4 electric utility seekmg a heense to 5

d e

s NEPA might be mvolved.

i The Commission has also concluded 2.200-2 206 also issued under sec. tan. es Stat.

operate a production or utilization oss (42 U.S C 223el sec. 20s. as Stat.124e (42 facility of the type described m that adoption of the on. site propert)

U.S C 56461. Sections 2 600-2 606.2 730.

I 50.21[b] or 150.22.

damage msurance requirement. as 2.n2 also issued under sec.102. Pub. L modif ed, will better ensure that 91-19o.83 Stat e53 (42 U.S C 43320 adequate protection of the health and Sections 2.700a. 2.71e also issued under

4. In Appendix A of Part 2. Sections eafety of the pubhc is achieved.This 5 U.S C 554 Sections 2.754.2.7eo.

VI(c)(1][iii) and Vill (b)(4) are revised to requirement will be effective June 29, 2m also issued under 5 U.S C 557.

read as follows:

1981 Section 2 7eo also issued under sec.103 t4 Star e36 as amended (42 U S C 2133t Appendia A-Statement of General PeBcy Papernork Reduction Act Statement Sections : a00 2 ao? also issued under 5 and Wm Conduct of Proceediage for the tesuance of con.irvenon Portants and The Nuclear Regulatory Commission U $3

'd Na't b hU 5 C 83 b l

O erating Ucenses for Production and g

c2.

P has submitted this rule to the Office of 4332; s,ct,an 2 soo siso issued under 5 U S t l'tihzation Tacibties for Which a Hearing le Management and Budget for such 553 and sec. 28. Pub. L as-25s. rt stat sie as

"*4"I'*d bd" S*C"'* A I'h' ^'*""'

teview as may be appropriate under the amended by Pub L e5-Joe 91 Stat.1483 (42 Enun Act of1sR as Amended Papersork Reduction Act of1980(Pub u 5 C 2039J Append 2= A is also issued under 9

Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 82 / Wednesday. March 31. 1982 / Rules and Regulations s

" U54 l

. Posthea.ing Proceedings, including the cooperatives, and stata and federal of conetructing or operating a fadlity hut! Decision agencies, including assodations of any must also inchade information showing-ji)%elega!and Anantial of the foregoing. ara included within the re.ationships it has or proposes to have meaning of " electric utility.**

(c) * *

• Ol***

7. In 150.33, paragraph (f) le revised to with its stocibchfers or owners:

lisil Whether the appbcaut is financially tead as foDows:

(ii)%eir Ananrk! ability to meet any l

quahhed to design and wnstruct the et al oM to the enMy I

• I PP *

I which they hava incurred or propose to afl n t be at is' sue ca a

w incur, ana electnc utaht) seeking a ticanoe to construct e Enth application must state:

(til) Any other information conaldered prodaction or i.tazabon facihty of the type necessar) by the Commission to enable g

desenbed m I SO 21(bl or Sa72; it to determine the applicant's fir.anda!

(f)(1)Information suffident to demonstrate to the Commission the qualifications.

. Vll! Procedures Applicable to Operating financial quahfications of the appbcant (3) Except for electric uti!!ty Ucense Proceedmga to carry out,in accordance with app!! cants for construction permits and

{

1 regulations in this chapter, the activities operating licenses, the Commission may g

g...

for which the permit or license is sought. request an established antity or newly-t (41 Whether the opphcant is technically However, no information on finandal formed entity to arbmit additional or end financially quahfied to engage in the qualifications,includ.ng that in more detailed Iaformation respecting its i

setmties to be authortzed by the operstng bcense in accordance with the Commission'a paragraphs (f)(1)[1) and (ii) of this finandal arrangements and status of regulations. except that the issue of financial section. is required in any application.

funds !#the Commission considers this quahficatiens shall net be considered by the nor shaU any financial review be information appropriata.This may board J G e apphcant is an electnc utshty conducted. if the applicant is an electric include information regarding a e de7en ed utility applicant for a license to licensee's ability to continue the conduct i

construct or operate a production or of the activities authorized by the i

uti at on fac 1 t fte 150mlb) or 150.22 utihzation facility of the type described license and to permanently shut down in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22.

the facility and mamtain it in a safe (i)lf the applicationis for a condition.

PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF construction permit, the applicant shall PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION submit information that demonstrates

8. In (50.40 paragraph (b)is revised FACILITIES the applicant possesses or has to read as foUows:

I.

. 5. The authority citation for part 50 is reasonable assurance of obtaining the evised to read as follows:

funds necessary to cover estimated

$ 50.40 Common standards.

(

construction costs and related fuel cycle Authority: Secs 103.104 161.182.183.189.

68 Stat. 936 937 948,953. 954. 955. 958. as costs.De applicant shall submit (b)he applicant is technicaUy and amended (42 U.S C 2133. 2134 2201. 2232.

estimates of the total construction costs financially qualified to engage in the j

2:33. 2239). secs 2o1 202. 206. 88 Stat.1243.

of the facility and related fuel cycle proposed actidties in accordance with c sts, and shallindicate the source (s) of the regulations in this chapter. However, i

oth e oted Sec n 50 8 a ss funds to cover these costs.

no consideration of financial under see 122 68 Stat. 939142 U.S C. 21521 (ii)If the application is for an qualifications is necessary for an

}

Sections so sa-50 el aise issued under sec.

operating license, the applicant shaU alectric utility applicant for a license for 164 68 Stat 954 as amended (42 U.S C. 22341 Sections 50100-50102 issued under see 186, submit information that demonstrates a production or utilization facility of the 68 Stat 955 (42 tl S C 2236) For the purposes the apphcant possesses or has type described in 150.21(b) or 150.22.

of sec 223 68 Stat 958. as amended 142 U S C reasonable assurance of obtaining the

+

+

funds necessary to cover estimated

9. In 150.54, a new paragraph (w)is

' (

2[3Qi $'4 a)d under'sec.

operation costs for the period of the added to read as follows.

a re e

161b 68 Sta! 94e as ar-ended (42 U.S C.

bcense, plus the estimated costs of Permanently shutting the facility down 1 50.54 Condit one of 5connes.

d s e nder c 61:

Sa 94 and maintaining it in a eafe condition.

a nended (42 U S C 2001(ill and il 50 55(el.

The applicant shaU submit estimates for (w) Each electric utility licensee under 50 59tbl. 50 70 So 71. 50 72 and 50 78 are total annual operating costs for each of this part for a production or utihzation issued under see 1elo 68 Sta! 950 as amended (42 L' S C 2201(oll the first five years of operation of the facihty of 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 150.22 shaU. by June 29.

I permanently shut down the facility and 1982. take reasonable steps to obtain on-added to read as fc!!cws maintain it in a safe condition.The site property damage insurance 1 50.2 Defw oons.

applicant aban also indicate the available at reasonable costs and on As used m this part.

source (s) of funds 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 utility" means any entity term of an operating license must the Commission that it possesses an f

include the same financialinformation equivalent amount of protection that generates or distributes electricity as required in an application for an covering the facility.Provided. that-and which recovers the costa of this (1) This insurance must have a electricity, either directly or indirectly, initial beense.

through rates established 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 (1) that offered by authority Insestor-owned utilities, operating licenses each application fer either American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) including generat;on or distribution a construction permit or an operating and Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance subsidianes, public unlity districts.

license submitted by a newly formed Pool (MAERP) jointly or Nuclear Mutual j

municipahties. rural electric entity organized for the primary purpose Limited (NM1.): plus (ii) that offered by

Tcderal R: gist:r / Vcl. 47. Ns. 62 / Wednisday. March 31.19s2 / Rules and Regulations 13755

'f Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited Anancial protection it maintalna and the

12. In Appen&= M to Part 30.

(NEIL). the Edison Electric Institute sources of this insurance or protection.

pb 4.(b)la revised to read as (EEI). ANI and MAERp jointly. or NM1.

10. In i 50.57. paragraph (a)(4)la as excess property insurance; revised to read as follows:

Appeme +, - a -a..a-g omsign, (2) The licensee shall within ninety Masdecame d Nedmar Power Ramsesse:

N WWh Camstrouslos and Operseem af Nedmar Power (90) days of any increases in policy

1. • M*"d'S8"*d P"une se limits for primary or excess coverage (a) * *

• that it has obtained pursuant to this (4) The applicant is techntemfly and

(

paragraph. tale reasonable steps to SnandaDy quali5ed to engage in the obtain these increases; and activities authorized by the operating h...kandaltheon M

[3] When a licensee is prohibited from license in accordance with the yw, east to I soJs(f) obau be dmseted at a purchasing cin site property damage regulations in this chapter. However. no demonstretson of the e===,4 1 quahncet>ons insurance because of state or locallaw.

Andmg of Anancial qualineations is of the appbcant for the manufactunns license the licensee shall purchase the specific necessary for an efectric utility to cany oot the manufsetums actinty for e the bcense la someht.

amount of su::h insurance found by the applicant for an operating license for a NRC to be reasonably available to that Production or utilization facility of the D@2%M bcensee. or to obtain an equivalent type described fr $ 5021(b) cr $ 5022.

Mareb tes2.

amount of protection; and For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+

+

+

+

(4)The licensee shall report on April 1 94 g_4 w g, g of each year to the NRC as to the

""#88##"

present lesels of this insurance or it. P 50 is amended by removing

_'Y 'l su. casa occa -

1 l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY &

)

Docket No. 50-482 KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

)

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station,

)

~

Unit No. 1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF MOTION TO DISMISS KASE CONTENTION in the above-captioned proceeding has 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 23rd day of April,1982.

[

James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Silver Spring, MD 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission r

Washington, D.C. 20555

• Dr. George C. Anderson Docketing and Service Section Department of Oceanography Office of the Secretary University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, D.C.

2055

• Dr. J. Venn Leeds Eric A. Eisen, Esq.

10807 Atwell Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Houston, Texas 77096 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 l

A. Scott Cauger Kansans for Sensible Energy i

Office of General Counsel P.O. Box 3192 i

Missouri Public Service Commission Wichita, Kansas 67201 P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mary Ellen Salava Route 1, Box 56 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Burlington, Kansas 66839 i

.Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge t

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 2006

_ j Wanda Christy 515 N. 1st Street

.Burlington, Kansas 66839 5

Atomic Safety and Licensing l

Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C. 20555

• j C. Edward Peterson, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Kansas Corporation Commission L

State Office Bldg.

l Topeka, KS 66612 L

John M. Simpson, Esq.

Attorney for Intervenors 4400 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 W

Myr f Karman Depbty Assistant Chief

}

Hearing Counsel I

I I

r 5

4 1

1 1

1 4

1 i

,