ML20196H954
| ML20196H954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1998 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196H655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR50465, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-50 AF41-2-051, AF41-2-51, NUDOCS 9812090232 | |
| Download: ML20196H954 (2) | |
Text
.._.; .-, . .m--
/ G4 p & UNITED STATES j
t g l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j e ! WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066 Moo 1
' l May 28, 1998 j
% / {
so PbA l MEMORANDUM TO: Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l FROM: .Malcolm R ,
Actin or j ateri Officef and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF FINAL RULE - FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS l 1
We have reviewed the subject final rule package, and concur subject to resolution of the I following comments.
l
. We recommend deleting the provision to allow combinations of parent and self-guarantees with other financial instruments. l
. We are concerned about the use of parent and self-guarantees for "non-utility" nuclear power plant licensees. Under deregulation of the electric utility industry, we have no experience with entities that rnay be formed from corporate restructuring. It seems premature to allow guarantees for large financial obligations without a stronger basis for assessing the risks of failure of these potential new corporate entities. .
. If parent and self-guarantees are allowed, for "non-utility" entities we suggest that assets and income, derived from the nuclear power plants being guaranteed, be excluded from the computations used for the financial ratios.
Additional detailed comments are attached.
Attachment:
As stated CONTACT: C. Prichard, NMSS/IMNS l (301) 415-6203 2 9812090232 981208 PDR PR 30 63FR50465 PDR
%12Mo43a '2 e /c . _
L
DETAILED COMMENTS ON NRR FINAL RULE ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE Federal Reaister Notice
" power reactors" is used extensively in the rule. Do we need a definition of " power reactor" in Part 50?
- p. 21-last para. -- couldn't they also use a financial test mechanism? ;
i
- p. 26--2nd para.- This discussion reads like financial test mechanisms could be used by electric utilities, and this is not true under present regulations (see 50.75 text on p. 722 of 10 CFR). i l
- p. 62--Review Appendix C text to check whether you intend to use parent guarantee or se!f-guarantee.
- p. 72-OGC should review the amendments to Part 30, Appendix C to see if they don't make this Appendix too complicated, i.e., using it for power reactors as well as materials licensees.
Reaulatorv Analysis This would be much clearer with udditional introductory background on the industry-- how many licensees affected, what is ae. decommissioning liability, etc.
- p. 3-Top para.-lists mechanisms available to non-electric utilities, then has a footnote about electric utility licensees. Since the whole focus of Section 1.2 is electric utilities, this should be reversed, i.e., footnote should be non-e.u.'s.
p.15-3rd para.--misleading--approved mechanisms for materials licensees are clearly specified in 10 CFR, not just in guidance. ,
1 I
- p. 38--1st para.--In light of the next comment this argument seems weak. Power generating facilities may be bought by huge companies, potentially eligible for self/ parent guarantee. Also, j couldn't some estimate be generated of how many present utility licensees or potential j independent power producers could pass tests for parent /self guarantee?
- p. 45-The basis for these numbers rests on the assumption that licensees can't use self or j parent guarantee, if they can, then they could be saving money by not using a sinking fund.
Large sums of money will be at stake, and power generators in a highly competitive environment will have strong incentive to find some way of using the mechanisms of self/ parent guarantee.
Attachment
_