ML20205Q206

Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM 50-52 Re Exemption of Financial Qualifications of Applicants from Review of OL Applications.Petition Presents No Compelling Reason to Amend Current Rules

ML20205Q206
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Limerick, 05000000
Issue date:	10/28/1988
From:	Carr A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR32913, RULE-PRM-50-52 53FR32913-00004, 53FR32913-4, NUDOCS 8811090141
Download: ML20205Q206 (2)

Text

,

-. U

~ t N'JM&",f.f'10 '"'

DUKE Powan COMPA.NY '

I.BOAI, DEPARTMENT  ! 3 "i M EN,'j;5'A P. O. Box 00189 2,';^"lt"U;""" OMARLOTTE,N.C ese4e m m 2570 M',"!.M^t",c.s.. 1B wr 27 A10:08

$ ".NJ."d'.'".'ok. sa.

UMk*o k',.".'.'.",0.. .;n .

'$"h"" " # b.% .

. .... m  ;

Eo'A'.": 'ONi'".'o a. s.. October 28, 1988 COCM'-* ':WCI3 mrT . ',,

L; .]i A,)7 -f  ;

43 2 p/ '  :

? Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch [

RE: Marvin Lewis: Petition for Rulemaking I Docket No. PRM-50-52

Dear Mr. Secretary:

[

Duke Power Company (Duke) is pleased to have t b opportunity to submit comments on the captioned Petition for Rulemaking. Marvin Lewis, (Petitioner) I seeks a change in the Commission's regulations, at 1C CFR $52.104(c)(4) and i 50.33(f),l/ which under normal conditir,ns exempt from NRC review of operating j license applications, including hearings, the financial qualifications of  :

applicants who are "electric utilities." Petitio . J 1eges that the l Commission's present rules prevent the financial . "tien of a utility from i hing investigated during licensing hearings, thu. requiring the assumption by NRC of financial adequacy on the part of the utility Oich could pose a danger to the public health and safety. i For the reasons set out ow, Duke believes that Petitioner's request i should not be addressed in 6 aric rulemaking. To the extent Petitioner has stated an appropriate cli e. venues exist within current NRC regulations i to allow Petitioner to raise chose claims for consideration. Thus there is  :

no need for a rulemaking of the nature sought and Duke urges the Commission &

to dismiss the Petitiv ,

Petitioner, a res p .a of Philadelphis, Pennsylvania, appears to be t I

concerned about the financial stability of the Philadelphia Electric Company.  !

l Petitioner maintains that Philadelphia Electric Company, because of I long-standing operating problems at Limerick and Peach Bottom, suffers l

financial difficulties and that se:h financial problems may lead to a '

ituatier. it. hit.ii these plants will have to be shut dowr.. In=ceicec,  !

Petit oner requests that L% NRC a.:and its rules to reinstate review of i

l financ,al qualifications as 4 requirement for all electric utt itties, anu suspend the licensing proceedings for Limerick Unit 2, until Philadelphia l l

1/ The Notice published in the Federal Register (53 Fed. Reg. 32913, August j 29,1983) does not specify the sections to be amended. It is believed, ,

i however, that the references in the text are the applicable provisions  !

I of the Commission's rules. 8811090141 801028 I l

PDR PRM 50-52 PDR D bt 0 f

i

. I l

Electric can demonstrate to NRC that it is financially qu?lified to safely l proceed with Limerick 2 and its other nuclear operatis,:.

In Duke's view the relief requested by Petitioner, viz., generic amendment of NRC's rules, is inappropriate. Mr. Lewis appears not to have raised issun for utilities other than Philadelphia Electric and, so far as can be determined from the Notice published in the Federal Register, has presented no basis for reviewing the financial qualifications of all electric utilities. Leaving aside the question whether his allegation with respect to Philadelphia Electric raises an issue which the Commission may find cognizable, the Commission's rules as they currently are constituted provide avenues to Petitioner to raise the questions he wants considered, assuming he can make the proper showing, and thus provide him the relief he seeks without resorting to a generic rulemaking.

For example, if Petitioner seeks relief with respect to any aspect of operation of those Philadelphia Electric plants that currently hold operating licenses, tlie appropriate avenue for him to pursue is to petition the Executive Director for Operations ut. der 10 CFR SS2.202 and 2.206 for issuance of a show cause order "to modify, suspend, or revoke [the operating license or licenses] or for such other action as may be proper." If Mr. Lewis is an intervenor in the licensing proceeding for Limerick Unit 2 and seeks a financial review of Philadelphia Electric as a part of that licensing process for Limerick 2 (and it appears that he does) the proper avenue for him to follow is to petition the Commission under 10 CFR $2.758 for a waiver of or exception to the general rules set out in SS2.104(c)(4) and 50.33(f). If Mr.

Lewis is not now an intervenor in the Limerick 2 licensing proceedings he may seek permission from the NRC, under 10 CFR 52.714, to so participate to raise his concerns in that forum.

Because Mr. Lewis has existing avenues of relief open to him and because his Petition presents no compelling reason why the Commission should amend its current rules the Petition for Rulemaking should be denied.

Sincerely you s, e V. a r, Jr.

AVC/sjr Eb '.. km g 2