ML20151P607
| ML20151P607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lloyd M HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151P610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808100117 | |
| Download: ML20151P607 (2) | |
Text
[p0CE0g%n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 35-j,..
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
., g a
%,..*... /
po Q CHAmMAN August 2, 1988 The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Committee on Science, Space, and Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Madam Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of July 19, 1988, in which you sought the Commission's views on modifying H.R.
1414, the bill which would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act, to eliminate a potential disincentive for utilities to parchase modular, advanced reactor units.
H.R.
1414 as currently written includes authori7ation in proposed new section 170b(2)(A) f o r t he Cor.ini s s i on to ma ke "case by case" ad,iustments to retrospectite premium requirements in certain circumstances.
We believe that a serious legal question could arise from this provision as to whether the Commission may provide by rule that a group of reactors be treated as a single reactor for the purposes of meetina the financial requirements.
More importantly, even if the Commission were to exercise its authority to require less than the maximum deferred premium for modular advanced power plants, the difference would still have to be paid eventu:lly under 170b(2)(B).
We also agree with the view that those considering use of modular reactors could be discouraged by the potential of significantly broader financial exposure than they would incur by choosing a single reactor to generate the same regawatts of power.
On review of the draft amendment you propose, our opinion is that it would remove from H.R.
1414 the potential disincentive that you have identified.
We agree that the amendment would give the Commission authority to define by regulation the putential recipients of this treatment and thus to control whether or not the disincentive woLid be eliminated for any class of modular reactors.
However, unless the Commission took such action, it sopears to us that the terms of the draft amendment could be sufficient for any licensee of a modular advanced nuclear power plant to claim a statutory right to a single-reactor treatment provided that the power plant has arguably significant passive safety features and is within the wattage limit.
G808100117 880802 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC t
\\
.l 2
I hope'that this. response will be helpful to you.
The General Counsel or designated-members-of his staff are available to assist you or your staff further in this matter.
Sincerely, (A/.
Lando W. Z h,
r i
cc:
Rep. Sid Morrison i
l
.