ML20246M710
| ML20246M710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36338, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8903270230 | |
| Download: ML20246M710 (10) | |
Text
-
w DOCKET tiUMBER PJ10P.0 SED RULE gg-
]
)
h
[7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORfatofW30DN A9 :25 10 CFR Part-50 Extension of Time for the Implementation of the k
Decontamination Priority and Trusteeship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements W
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending the impleme schedule to change the effective date for the stabilization and d priority and trusteeship provisions of its property insurance regula on
}
)
This delay in implementation is necessary because the insurers that offer proper,ty insurance for power reactors have informed the Comission will be unable to include the stabilization and decontamination prio ey y and trusteeship provisions in their insurance policies within the d t a e required by current regulations.
Concurrently, the extension of the effective date of the rule allows the NRC to consider three petitions for rulemaki ng that propose changes to improve the efficacy of the NRC's stabilization and priority and trusteeship provisions.
a on EFFECTIVE DATE:
[ Insert the date of publication of this rule.]
4 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert S. Wood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington
, D.C.
- 20555, Telephone (301) 492-1280.
xA gsin u%3 199 N /0
2 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
)
I. Background On September 19, 1988, the Commission published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (53 FR 36338) that proposed to amend the implementation schedule for the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of its property insurance regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) to change the effective date from October 4,1988 to April 4,1990. As explained in the proposed rule, this implementation schedule was part of a final rulemaking
)
published on August 5,1987 (52 FR 28963) which, for the first time, explicitly required power reactor licensees to purchase on-site property damage insurance l
policies in which $1.6 billion of the proceeds from these policies are to be used first for stabilization of a reactor after an accident and then for decontamination of the facility before any other purpose. The 1987 final rule j
also required that these insurance proceeds be paid to an impartial trustee who would be required to disburse funds according to the stabilization and decon-tamination priority.
Subsequent to the publication of the 1987 final rule, the NRC was informed that the trusteeship provision and, to a lesser extent, the stabilization and decontamination priority provisions of that rule were sufficiently complex and l
problematic that the insurers were unable to incorporate such provisions in their policies by the required October 4, 1988 date.
As explained in the September 19, 1988 proposed rule, the insurers and their counsel gave two reasons why they were unable to comply with the date j
1' 3
i specified in the final rule for adding the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions.
First, with respect to the trusteeship provision, counsel for insurers assured the NRC staff that they had made a good-faith _ effort to obtain trustees, but were unsuccessful. They believed l
the reason for their lack of success was the potential trustees' conflicts of 1
l interest and reluctance to assume, on the one hand, responsibility for dis-bursing potentially over $1 billion in insurance proceeds and the resulting exposure to possible litigation for wrongful disbursement, while, on the other hand, being eligible for only modest fees for this service.
A second reason insurers gave for being unable to comply with the effec-I tive date of the 1987 rule was essentially logistical. As a contract, an in-surance policy can only be modified with the consent of all affected parties.
Because the Comission's mandated stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions adversely affect the current rights under the policy of the bondholders' trustee, it is unlikely that policies could be legally changed before the end of the policy years. Because of insurers' policy renewal procedures and the policy anniversaries, these dates would have fallen after the effective date specified in the rule.
1 II.
Sumary of Coments, NRC Response and Conclusions By the end of the coment period on October 19, 1988, the NRC received five coments. One of these was misdirected to this rulemaking.
(Coment' l was directed to rescinding $550.54(x) and (y) rather than 650.54(w).) The remaining four either supported the proposed rulemaking (coment 4) or sought
4 clarification of the applicability of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) to specific licensees while the rulemaking was being considered (comments 2, 3, and 5).
In addition, comment 4 suggested that, rather than provide a date certain in the rule, the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of
$550.54(w)(3) and (4) be suspended indefinitely pending completion of considera-tion of three petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, and PRM-50-51B; 53 FR 36335, September 19,1988).
The only issue of any controversy raised by commenters was whether the ex-tension of time for implementing the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of 650.54(w) should be for a date certain (i.e.,
April 4,1990) or indefinite until consideration of the above-cited petitions for rulemaking has been completed. The Comission continues to believe that an 18 month extension is more appropriate than an open-ended extension.
- First, as comenter 4 acknowledged,18 months should be sufficient to complete con-sideration of the issues raised in the three petitions for rulemaking. Second, if 18 months is insufficient, the Commission can act to further extend the implementation date.
Finally, the Commission imposed the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions for valid health and safety reasons.
Indefinitely deferring these provisions prior to a substantive reevaluation of their efficacy could conflict with the Commission's mandate to protect health and safety.
The proposed rule analyzed why an 18 month delay would have minimal health and safety impact. The NRC believes that analysis remains valid.
y _
5 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that a delay from October 4, 1988 to April 4, 1990 in the implementation schedule of the stabili-zation and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions is justified and is amending 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) accordingly.
Because the amendment to i 50.54(w)(5)(i) relates solely to extending the time for implementing the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of the property insurance rule and therefore provides l
relief from restrictions under regulations currently in effect, the Commission has found that good cause exists for making the rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register without the customary 30 day waiting period.
)
III.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion l
l The NRC has determined that this rule constitutes a minor corrective j
amendment that does not substantially modify existing regulations and, there-fore, is the type of action eligible for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required.
(
l IV.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et l
l seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011.
L-____--_-_
_J
6 Y.
Regulatory Analysis On August 5,1987, the NRC published in the Federal Register a final rule amending 10CFR50.54(w). The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by NRC's power reactor licensees.
The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4,1988 insurance policies that prioritized insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontami-nation after an accident and provided for payment of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamination and cleanup before any other purpose. Subsequent to publication of the August 5,1987 rule, the NRC was informed by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that the decontamina-tion priority and trusteeship provisions would not be able to be incorporated into the policies by the time required in the 1987 rule.
In petitions for rule-1 making, insurers' representatives further stated that the trusteeship provi-sions might actually have an effect counter to their intended purpose by delaying claims payment and thus possibly the cleanup process.
By deferring implementation of these provisions by 18 months, the Commission is allowing a
sufficient time either to secure the required coverage or to reconsider the mechanism by which accident cleanup funds may be assured to be used for their intended purpose. Even without formal stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions, NRC has authority to take appropriate enforcement action to order cleanup in the unlikely event of an accident. Thus, this rule will not have a significant impact on public health and safety.
Furthermore, this rule will not have significant impacts on state and local governments and geographical regions; on the environment; or, create substantial costs to
v I
7 4
licensees, the NRC, or other Federal agencies.
The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this rule.
VI.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule affects only those companies licensed to operate nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small i
entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
VII.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule because this rule would not impose a backfit as defined in650.109(a)(1). Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by ref-erence, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty,
8 4
i Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amerded, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1224, as amended (42U.S.C.2132,2133,2134,2135,2201,2232,2233,2236,2239,2282);
secs. 201 as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50,7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.23 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q alsoissuedundersec.102, Pub.L.91-190,83 Stat.853(42U.S.C.4332).
m 9
1 Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.1245
]
(42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Section 50.103 also issued under sec.108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42U.S.C.2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
il 50.10 (a), (b), and (c), 50.44,50.46,50.48,50.54and50.80(a)areissued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b)); il 50.10 (b) and(c),and50.54areissuedundersec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42U.S.C.2201(i));and$$50.9,50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70,50.71,50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42U.S.C.2201(o)).
I
10 2.
In 650.54, paragraph (w)(5)(1) is revised to read as follows:
$50.54 Conditions of ~1icenses.
(w)
(5) The decontamination priority and trust requirements set forth in paragraphs (w)(3) and (w)(4) of this section must:
(1) Be incorporated in onsite property damage insurance policies for nuclear power plants not later than April 4, 1990 and Dated at Rockville, Maryland this [
day of 1989.
/
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
J
/>
W&P Victor Stell M r.
Executive Director for Operations
_ _ - _ -