ML20203F598
| ML20203F598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203F588 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-274-C, NUDOCS 9803020008 | |
| Download: ML20203F598 (3) | |
Text
-
~ - -
NOT ATION VOTE e
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-274 - RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OR DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PORTION OF THE FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON RESTRUCTURING AND ECONOMIC DEREGULATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY ADDRESSING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABLITY OF OWNERS w/ edits Approved x
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached edits, d~ LL~
SIGNATtdRE
/
Release Vote / X /
December 18, 1997 e8S $O$$ M8C DATE 2
CORRESPCNDENCE PDR Withhold Vote /
/
Entered on "AS" Yes No f,i G f'0 3 D Z M G E'
I date Gary J. Newell, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1360 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005 4798 RE:
FINAL POUCY STATEMENT ON THE RESTRUCTURING AND ECONOMIC DEREGULATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY
Dear Mr. Newell:
l Byletter dated October 14,1997, you filed " Publicly Owned Systems' Request for Rech or, in the AltomatNo, Motion to Delay EWoceveness of a Portion of the Final Policy Statement in Order to Receive Additional Public Comment", on behalf of eight municipal and cooperabvet/ owned electric utility systems (" Publicly Owned Systems"). The Putsciy Owned Systems requested that the Comminaion reconsider that portion of the Final Policy Statement which addroceed joint and several hability of co ownern4coneses of nucieer plants.
For the following reasons, the Commiselon dochnes to reconsider or delay the eNectiveness of that portion of the Final Policy Statement.
The Final Pohey Statement did not create a bindog rule or regulation. It in no way altered any prtvate contractual ammgements. Moreover, it expressed no change in prior NRC practice, it set forth a view that the NRC may, under unusual, specific circumstances, consider imposing joint and several responsibility on co ownersaicensees of nudeer plants. A statement of policy creates no binding regulation or rule for boeneses. See Umerick Ecology Aadon v. NRC, 889 F. 2d 719,738 (3rd Cir.1989). Thus, no rights or obligations of licensees are aNected by the policy statemert in addhion, the NRC hee not stated that it win abrogate contractual rotations creating prwada l
respN or interfere with a prwate division of responsibiNty. In fact, thw NRC
=-A--c:': f-;+1 that prwade dwision of responsibiNty is he norm, and should remain 16 operative standard. Rather, the NRC exproceed the view that in extraordinary circumstances, where public heeNh and safety is adversely aNected, it would consider imposing joint and several responsibility. This does not represent a departure from previous Commission practice.
See, e.g., Pubhc Servios Corrqpany o(New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLM18-10,28 NRC 573 (1988h The Final Pohcy Statement is fully consistent with the " Proposed Rule on Fi,1ermial Assurance Requirements for C+:-:fi, "':+,;,4 Nuclear Power
". (82 Fed. Reg. 47588 (September 10,1997)), wherein the NRC noted that the imposition of and severalliability for f+:-:5,w'::':5# costs may not be necessary because the Commission considers the level of 4
financial aneurance for d+:-:+,.. '::':--# to be adequate. Thus the NRC saw"no need to 4
impose an addtbonal regdelory obhgation of joint liability on coewnsrs or co-hcensees."
82 Fed. Reg. 47588 at 47594. If the Pubhcly Owned Utilities, nevertheless, believe there is some ire:Wy between the proposed rule and the Final Pohey Statement, they may oRor
- e*
(lary J. Newell such comment with respect to the proposed rule, The Final Policy Statement does not impose any regulatory obligation on loconsees. As
. Itis a statement of policy, not a binding rule. It merely leaves open the that under oortain unusual circumstancee, the NRC may consider imposing joint and several ity.
The Cwr T'::!r sees no need to delay the
%w of that portion of the policy statement pending additionalcomment. The period for the draft polecy statement, which was open from September 23,1996 until F 9,1997, provided ample time for comment on all issues raised. Itis unlikely that an comment period would provide information or insight on this issue not previously ht to the attention of the CGT,ir'::!ri.
For the foregoing reasons, the declines to reconsider or delay implementation of the Final Policy Statement.
Sincerely, John c. Hoyle, Secretary 1
[E W
/
- )
/
c/aJe.
//
P/l
/p ied L
na '" "'
4 ',
/c 4, A opaq b~
kTd J' 7mM;(""'"g^f"gh.?N
,/4A fgoagA su..au sude. au"'y gggapskat-
~