ML20054J306

Appeal for Reconsideration of ASLB 820609 Memorandum & Order Dismissing Financial Qualification Contention & Intervention.Financial Qualification Issues Illegally Eliminated from Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054J306
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	06/23/1982
From:	Simpson J KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SIMPSON, J.M.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8206280463
Download: ML20054J306 (10)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

, 3 g; :/g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD I

In the Matter of

)

)

KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

)

Docket No. 50-482 et. al.

)

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station,

)

Unit No.1)

)

APPEAL FROM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS CONTENTION AND DISMISSAL OF K ANSANS FOR SENSIBLE ENERGY AS PARTY l

1.

This is an appeal from an order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing I

Board dismissing the contention and intervention of Kansans for Sensible Energy.

Pursuant to an order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for this docket, Kansans for Sensible Energy (KASE) was dismissed as an intervenor in this matter, and its contention regarding the financial qualifications of the applicants was also dismissed. Attached and by reference made a part hereof is a copy of that order dated June 9,1982.

2.

KASE takes exception to that order because the rule of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relied upon as the basis for the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is invalid. A copy of that rule (47 Federal Register 13750, March 31,1982) is attached and is by reference made a part hereof. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in adopting the rule, illegally eliminated consideration of financial qualifications issues in reactor licensing proceedings, contrary to the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

8206200463 'B'20623

~

9 NNJ PDR ADOCK 05000482 O

PDR

o.

3.

Because the rule was illegally adopted, KASE'S contentien and its intervention should not have been dismissed.

4.

K ASE asks that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board reinstate it as an intervenor and also reinstate KASE'S contention which was dismissed.

Very respectfully submitted, Eh. n

-, mw Min M. Simpson,' ' ~

Attorr.ey for Intervenor, Kansans for Sensible Energy 4400 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Shawnee Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 334-9144 Dated [I4+t.g M8

,1982.

e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c

oz 2,

.J.U } ?

f//f

, - 2' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m.I 00Cr.E v... a id.C, D i Before Administrative Judges SERVED JUN101982 James P. Gleason, Chairman George C. Anderson J. Venn Leeds In the Matter of

)

Docket No. 50-482 OL

)

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC C0., ET. AL. )

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

June 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS CONTENTION AND DISMISSAL OF INTERVEN0R AS PARTY The Applicants and Staff have moved to dismiss the financial qualification contention of Intervenor Kansans for Sensible Energy (KASE), and also KASE as a party, from this proceeding.

The basis for such motions is the recent Commission rule eliminating the issue of financial qualifications from operating license hearings. The financial ablities of the Applicants to operate or decommission the Wolf Creek facility is the sole issue raised by KASE in this proceeding and accordingly, if the basis for its participation is lost,theparty'sstandingfailsandKASEmustbgdismissedasa participant.

gv,

~ - -

In responding to the Applicants and Staff motions, KASE

, requests a denial on the grounds that the Commission lacks statutory authority to adopt the rule.

Whatever validity might attach to KASE's response, this Board's domain cannot be the forum in which this argument can be confronted and decided.

Commission regulations make clear the lack of any authority to challenge the Connission's rules or regulations in an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licenses.

(10 CFR 2.758)

The Commission's rulemaking action of March 31, 1982, therefore leaves the Board with no alternative but to grant the motions of the Applicant and the Staff, and accordingly KASE and its contention on financial qualifications are dismissed from this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD tht/

r James P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

13750 Federal Mcgister / Vol. 87. No. 62 / Wednesday. Maich 31.19n2 / Rules ant! Henulations NdCLEAR REGULATORY (2)(i) Also climinzted entirely thenc requirrnwnts und also requiring

< in COMMISSION respiirements for operating license licensers to demonstrute thur ability g,

• O upphennts: or a leun up ultrr un nuident. Ily cong si N

10 CFR Paris 2 and 50 (ii) Hetained these requirementa for utavic. uidity grouen. and utihty operating license applicants to the conts.n.tm e.upport completely 18 Elimination of Review of Financial estent they require submission of climinating the Comrnission's financial.

st Qualifications of Electric Utilitles in information concerning the costs of quahin.ations requirements.ir.ch.d:ng%

H decomminioning. Further. utilities an b)

IJcensing Hearings for Nuclear Power pctrunncntly shutting down the facility Plants and maintaining it in a safe < ondition their representalises generally oppos, i

(i c.. decomm,ssiunmg costs).

requiring m.md.itory property dur.a

'I

+

ArtNCv: Nuclear Regulatory Crmcurrently. the Commission insurunce. Comments from legal F8 si Commission.

proposed amending its regulations to generally reflected the interests and g ACTION: Fin.druIc.

require, on an interim basis, power views of their utility, insurance.or I

reactor licensees to " maintain the public intcrest chents. Governmental i

.T KUM M ARY:The Nuclear Regulatory masimum amount of commercially oignnizations and individuals reflecteg %

d' Commissien in amending its regulations uvailable on site property damage a spectrum of views, although most si to climinate entirely requirements for insurance, or on equivalent amount of were against climis.ating the financial imancial qualifications review and protection (e.g., letter of credit, bond. or qualifications review.Some states mal C'

findings for electric utilitics that are sctf insurance), from the time that the munis.ipahtics identified potentiallept P'

applymg for construction permits or Commission first permits ownership.

confhcts between certain provisions cf operating licenses for production or possession, and storage of special the proposed rulemaking and state tw' Vi utilization faulitics.The Commission is nuclear material at the site of the A summary of the comments is si also amending its regulations to require nuclear reactor."

presented below. Those who are 7

T' power reactor licensees to obtain on-site In the Federal Register notice, the interested may obtain copies of,pegg3, property damage insurance, or an Comminsion based its proposal for this comments imm the Public Documer.:

C

?

'I equis alent amount of protection (e.g.,

rulemaking. in part, upon the statutory Room or the NRC Secretary under 1.ctter of uedit, bond, or self insurance).

basis in the Atomic Energy Act of 1951 designntion PR-50 (40 FR 41786)[y h1 i

9' b

from the time that the Commission first ns umended ("AEA") for the finanual writing to: Office of the Secreta 8'

issues an operating license for the qualifications regulations and ita Nuclear Regulatory Commission. '.

8' nuclear reactor.

discussion in Public Service Company of Washington. D.P. 20555.

si A w ilampshire. ct. al. (Scabrook A. Reducing ar eliminating the trrtCiivt DAit: For umug;1ments cl.minating i noncial quahhcations i{1 d 2). C 17 RL, Commission 's financial qualificetices I

'C review (12.104. Sections VI and Vill of and the proposed ru/, cmaking, the review. Those arguing against reductag ~

or c!iminating the Cornmission's Appendix A to Part 2. Il2.4. 50.2 Comnussion affirmedits behef that t e financial qualifications review maks s

Appendix C to Part 50. Appendix hl.

existing financial qualifications review four major points. First, they discout parngraph 4.(b) to Part 50, 6 50.33(f), and

$ 50.4n), hf ar. 31.1982. For amendments has done little to identify substantia NRC's presumption that public utilities U I'

health and safety concerns at nuckar can meet the financial demands of cstablishing on site property damage power plants. Ilowever. because the constructing and operating nuclear 1

d insurance requirement (ll 50.54(w) and Commission believed that there are plants. Citing Scubrook. WppSs, ggg, L rr 50.57). June 2919112. In accordance with matters important to safety which may U

South Texas and other examples's oftse.

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1900, be affected by fm, ancial considerations.

commenters maintain that utilitle (44 U.S.C. 3507), the reporting provision it requested comments regarding the have experienced and will continue w -

that is included in paragraph (w)(5) of type of NRC financial review that would experience difficulty in raising funds k+

I50.54 has been submitted for approval to the Office of Atanagement and Budget I cus effectively on considerations I at cover capital, operating, and 8

might adversely affect safety.

maintenance costs (particularlyin (Ohtfl). It is not effective until OhtB npproval has been obtained.

II. Public Comments on the Proposed periods of high interest rates and P

Rule overcopucity). whether or not sudt cent, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

jim C. Petersen. Office of State Over 160 comments were received on C n be recovered in the rate base h u Const Programs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

- the proposed rulemaking and have been tion Work in Progress y

Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 categorized as follows:

Second, these commenter m int 3

(telephone aat-192-9na3)-

Private citizens-on enmments eeccited the innbility to recover all costs I

d Pubhc interent gmups-30 commenta reccited provides un incentive for utilities to SUPPLt MENT ARY INF ORM ATION:

Insurance groups-2 comments received skimp on important safety componenig. g

'. p

+

I. Ilackgroun?

Legal counscl-e comments received g

Cmcrnmentat organizations and and quality nssurance tandards.$ome On August in.1981, the Comnu.ssmn individunts-in comments rei.cived commenters cite the discussion el E

pubbshed a notice of proposed tttihties and utihty gmupa-lo comments financial disincentives in the Roey 3 rulemaking in the rederal Register (40 received Report flhice Mile Island; A Repe,.f ts }

d l'R 41786) concerning requirements for Arclutect-engineers and contractorn-2 the Commission and the Public, hhtch g '

comments received imuncial quahfications review and Rogovin. Director january 1980) to fmdings for electric utilitics that are All private citizen comments and all support their views. Anot' er comm%

h applymg for permits or licenses for but two public interest group comments suggests that utilitics will be tempted is 8

production or utilization facilities. As oppose reducing or climinating the lower wages which wouldlead to : Q f proposed, the rule would hasc:

Commission's hnuncial qualification turnover and, thus, to emp! yment

?

b (1) Eliminated entirely financial review requirements. Ilowever, they inndequately trained personnel.Thirl

[

qualifications resicw requirements for generally support imposing immediate commenters maintain that NRC construction permit appbcants; and decommissioning financing insprotion efforts and capabilities are Y

5

(

\\

n..

~* m

Fedsr:1 Register / Vol. 47. No. 82 / Wednesday. March 31. 1982 / Rules cod tegulations 13751 inadequate to provids sufficient indicated its support for the subetsnm b importance of decommiseloning nsurance of safety.Even if violations of the pruposed rule-elimination of the funding to public health and safety, but ure found, some commenters argue that financial qualifications review becamse rathee recognizes that any action on NRC enforcement efforts are of the lack of any demonstrablelink decommissioningle more appropriate in inadequate. Fourth, the commenters between public health and safety the centext of the generic rulemaking assert that the financial qualifications concerns and a utility's abluty to snake now betng conducted. Until that time.

review function is statutorily required the requisite financial showing.

the Commisslam has concluded that it la by 42 U.S.C. 2232(a). (c) and (d).

ne actual financial situation pranature to include any final decision Further, many of those arguing against analyzed in that case has not changed.on decommtestoning la this final rule on climinating the financial qualifications

%cre is no evidence that the safety of financial quellBcations. Because the resiew recommend that the Commission the public has been adversely affected generic decorarawaaasay rule is should at least retain that portion of the by Public Service Company of New scheduied to be published in 1982 and review pertaining to decommissioning.

llampshire's (PSCNill di!!)culties ht since alllicensees will be required to They state that the ongoing obtainir.g financing. It la true that to meet any financial requirements decommissioning rulemaking is no raise capital. PSCNil has sold part ofits imposed as a result of that rulemaking.

substitute for an immediate general ownership in the Seabrook plant.but there should be little practical effect in requirement to demonstrate financial such action doca not have any temporarily eliminating consideration of capability to decommission a nuclear demonstrable link to any safety decommissioning funding from licensing production on utilization facility safely problemt Similarly. citing WPPS5*

activities. Moreover. lf decommissioning und espeditiously, hiany expressed the emperience is not convincing, becanae financing issues were continued b be view that the generic decommissioning Wl's SS* reslymsn (and that of most other allowed in current licensing atudy would not be completed in a utilities encountering financial proceedings, two undesirable effects reasonable time.

difficulties) has been to po@ly not oc may resu]L First, there would be an Dy contrast, those favoring the cancel their plants, actions clear increased chance that findings in such Commission's proposed reduction or inimical to public health and safety ~

cases might contradict evolving climination of the financial under the Atormc Energy Act.

Commission policy in this area. Second.

qualifications review function generally As to the third point raisodia one sitive gain from the final rule support the Commission'a reasoning that opposition to the proposed rule. in thE wou be countered. in that there could such a review has done little to identify absence of facts to the contrary, the.

be expected to be little. lf any, reduction.

substantive health and safety problems Commission cannot accept nar r ".

In the contentions before the licensing

,j at nuclear powstplants and that the statements that. as a general ma'tierits boards on Anancial qualifications.

Commission's inspection and inspection and enforcement efforts are lasses, thereby not signI8cantly enforcement activities provide more inadequate.The examples that reducing the time and effort devoted to effective protection of public health and commenters cite (e.g South Texas).

those issuse.

sI safety. hiost utilities and their appear to substantiate, rather them...

B.Mandaaorypmportyins4;tuncefor associates support complete elimination undercut, the Commiselan's view thai ?

deannesoninodon Comments are of the financial qualifications review,

, any violations of safety regulations ese. MmGerly divided on the issue of including provisions pertaining to being found and corrected ead that. in reqdring on-dte property insurance to decommissioning. nese commenters any event, such violations cannot be.

cover decontamination expenses e

maintain that,if any regulations relating shown to ariseTrom a licensee's alleged resulting from an accident. nose who to the financing of decommissioning are lack of financial qualifications.

h adopted, they should await completion With respect to the final assertion that tions review generally support so keeping the financial n

g of the Commission's beneric rulemaking the financial qualifications review SW a utility to demonstrate proof J.,

on decommissioning.

function is statutorily mandated. S=rtian ofits ability to clean up after an g

The Commission has received no 18:a of the AEA. 42 U.S.C. 2232(a),

accident %e Commission interprets comments to persuade it to change clearly indicates that such function is.

these cornments as supporting significantly its reasoning on the within the Commission's discretionary mandatery property insurance, insofar i

proposed financial qualifications rule.

authority, but is not mandeted. As noted as it covers accident cleanup costs. The is l

As ndicated above,many of those in the proposed rule. this interpretation other commenters favoring elimination opposing the proposed rule change have of Section 182a has been approved by of the financial qualificauons rule i

concluded that experience with the Urgited States Court of Appeals foe' coverage outright because of recent self-generally either (1) oppose mandatory s.

Seabrook. WPPSS and other plants the Fitst Circuit in New England at -

demonstrates the close connection Coalition on Nuclearlbilution v. N7tc initiated moves by the utility industry to

)

between financial qualifications and 582 F.2d 87. 93 (1978), affirming the obtain insurance or. (2) favor substantial O

public health and safety.ne NRC's Seabrook decislon.

modification of the rule to clarify tt Commission disagrees. As to the first On balance. after careful several ofits provisions.

0

'g pomt ruised by commenters opposing consideration of the comments

%e first group of commenters do not ehmmation of the financial t

submitted and of the factors discussed generally state their reasons for favoring

}

qualifications review, the Commission cli.:,,r does not find any reason to consider,in in the notice of proposed rulemaking, mandatory insurance except for an 8

the Commission has elected to undefined and non-quantifiable general a vacuum, the general ability of utilities promulgate the first of the two benefit in protecting public health and to finance the construction of new r

alternatives outlined in the pmposed safety. Some indicated that the amount erf generation facilities. Only when joined rule i.e eliminate the financial of insurance currently available is not to 4 with the issue of adequate protection of qualifications review of electric utilities sufficient to cover accidents such as ier,i the public health and safety does this entirely at the CP and OL stages.

DC-2. !!owever, because of recently 2

issue become pertinent. As to this, the including eitmination of any announced increases in the amount of

[:

commenters* second point. the consideration of decommissioning coverage available and the continuing

+

Commission in its SeabivoA decision funding.This is not meant to discount evolution in the insurance markets, this t

]

.f' n

5

Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 02 / Wednesday, hiatch 31. mu2 / Rules and Itcadations

}

13752

~

roncern may not be as greut as might Commission disagrees with the position authority to require.sm.h addititmal otherwise be the case.

taken by some commenters that it in infornmtion in in hu.inal cases us may As indicated abosc. the second group unfair to many owners of smaller power be nei cuary for the t:ornnus ion to

, of commentrro-primnrdy utilities and reactors to trquire insurance gtrally determine whether un upphcation 1

their representatives-object more to exceeding the cost of irplacing the should be granicil or atenied or whciber the wordmg of certain provisions of the facihty. A TMI-2 t)pe uccident ruuhl n license e,himbi he mmhfied or revokcd.

i proposed on site property damage well require coverage ut proaching $1 See, for example. lin fourth sentence of insurance rule than to the requirement billion, no matter what the original Section m2a of the AEA.Similarly,no itacif. Several commenters recognize value or size of the facdity 't he change in the present powers of the that the practical effect of requiring Commission expects that the required Commission with regard to the fmancial mandatory insurance has been reduced, insurance will cever reasonable epmlifications truew of non. utility particularly since the TMI-2 accident, decontaminution und clennup costs upplicants for puri 50 bcennen will be because most utilities will buy whatever associnted with the property damag" mmic. In addition. nn exception to or amount of coverage is offered, within resulting from an accident at the waiver from the rule would be possible reasonable limits, as a matter of good licensed facility. Until completion of to require the submission of financial business judgment. Other commenters studies evaluating the cost of c! caning information from a particular electric indicate that the Commission a up accidents of varying sescrity,it is utility apphcant if spei. int circumstances estimates of annual premiums required prudent to require for u!! power reactors are shown pursuant tu to CFR 2.758 in for a typical reactor may have been a reasonable amount of insurance for nn individuni lirensing henring.

understated. Estimated premiums for decontamination espense.

coverage currently available (i.e 5375

3. Several persons commented that IL Practicallmpurts. Also us or S450 milhon) are 53 million per ycur reactor licensees should not be requiied indiculed above und in the proposed for a typicalIwo-unit site.

to maintain on-site property damage rule, the Commission continues to In light of the3e comments and for the insurance until the operntmg hcense has cipect that the fmal rule will,in normal reasons stated in the proposed rule, the been received. With fuel merely stored circumstances. reduce the time und Commission has decided to retain the ut a reactor, the chance of nn accident effort which apphamts, licensees, the acquirrmont in the finnl rule that electric requiring extensive decontarninntion is NRC sinff and NHC udjudicatory boards utihtics must have on-site property estremely remote.The Commission devote to reviewing the applicant's or damage insurance, but several ugrees and has changed the rule brensce's finantini spmlihentiora. The modihcations has e been made pursuant accordingly, so that such insurance need rule will climinute stuff review in cases to the comments received.~pe following be in force only when the utility is where the upplicant is an electric utility, a hanges hnve been incorporMed into the licensed to operate the reni tor.

presumed to be able to financ.e uctivities test of the final rule on property

4. Several Texas utilities commented to be authorized under the permit or j

that the Texas tonstil'%n (ond, license.

i u

insur.mce:

1. The defmition of " maximum apparently, the louisiana and Idaho C.I.icense Amcm/ments 'Ite i

available amount" has been clarified.

constitutions) prohibits certain climination by this rule of the financial This term conhl have been interpreted to municipal utilities from purrhasinM qualifications review for c!cctric utility mean that utilitics would be required to insurance either offered by mutual appl cents niso applies to uny electric switch their insurance coverage to the insurance companics or involving utilities that become co-owners via carrier offering the greatest amount at retroactive assessments.The amendments to existing permits or Commiss,on has revised the rule to licenses. From time to time, original nny particular time. Another i

interpretation could be that utilities address these concerns.

owners of production or utilization would be required to obtain coverage

5. One commenter discuer,ed the need facil ties make arrangements to transfer from the two major insurers or any other. to clarify the amount of time required of to other electric utilitics a portion of the instrer that decides to enter this, market. the licensee to obtam not only imtial b b MH No M 4 u I

I mally, the

• masimum available could insurance but also subsetp cnt increuses amendment request is then filed, which I

g have meluded any increment no matter offered. Another suggested that many seekst add the new partner as co-how highly priced or how restrictive tha regulated utilties may have difficulty in owner and co-Hcere. For the purposes terms and conditions. The Commission's obtaining approval to purchase f IMs rule. sun, ar to the s,tuation d

i intent is neither to disrupt the insurance insurance within 90 days.The

" AdH "M '" P"d, ""'I"4 ""U""

'** I'*

markets by forcing utilities to switch Commission has revised the rule to of these new owners, the amendment i

their insurance carricts unnecessarily reflect its view that 90 days is a request mmpt ses lhe nuhal hcenso d

nar to requirc utilitics to obtain reasonable time in whit.h to take J

s npplicntion by the new, pnispective co-insurunce um!ct untcasonable terms reasonable steps to obluln both initial owner, even though the amendment and conditions.The rule has been and any additional on-site property reced may nedy W W by Me j

damahe insurnnce.6.T e phrase " commercially pnment hcensee and owner. E.g., Detroit changed to clarify the Commission's intent, specihcally in i 50.54[w).

2. Some ecmmenters maintained that available" insurance could have been Edison Company (Emico Fermi Atomic Power plant,ifnit No. 2). ALAIM75,7

(

the proposed rule should apply only to -

construed to exclude insurers such as NRC 752,7.%. n1 (1978). Since the same e

insurnnce ros cring decontamination of a NML and NF.II. The Commission facility suffering an accident and not to recognizes this possihte but erroneous fmancial qualificati ms revi:w j

"all risk" property damage insurance.

interpretation and,has changed the runsiderations upply to all electric j

Ilcenuse decontamination insurance is wording of the rule accordingly.

utility applicants. regardless of the i

particular manner in which their 1

the Commission's only concern from the 111. Other Cons. inrat.mn*

1 point of view of protecting public health upplication is tendered to the NRC. it u

und safety, cos crape to replace the A. Requirement for Additional should be clear that this final rule esisting facihty on an "all risk" basis is Information. As indicated in the applies to any request for un j

beyond th Scope of the Commission's proposed rule. the Commission does not nmendment that would,if granted, j

authority.113 the sarne reasoning, the intend to wais e or relinquish its residual include a new clettric utihty as a co-J l

b 9

.1 A

j

Fod;r:I Regialer / Vol. 47. No. 62 / wcenesay. LNcrc!1) 31. M.E / Ru!ca mi mgulanons w a.s owner und co-licenses in a productio2 L 96-511). The date on which th >

sec a Pub L tnm. 84 stai.1472 (42 USE

{

or uhhzatiimfacility.

Inform 2 tion rollet tinn requirements of 2:34 this rule in rome effective unless

2. In 5 2.4. new paragraph (*) is added i

IV. Conc! union e

advised to lhe i ontrnry, accordingly.

to read us followm:

I reflects inclus,on of the 00 day penod In summary, the Commission has i

concluded that the adoption of the rulf which the Act allows for such review.

I 2.4 Detm6 tion..

will sulatantially reduce the effort and resources associated with A

'Y Flexibility Certification As used m this part.

demonstrating fmancial qualifications of In accordance with the llegulatory clectric utihties that are upplying to Flcubihty Ai t of 11:00. 5 U.S.C. te(b).

(s)"Electnc utility" means any entity construct and operate nuclear the NRC hereby certifics that this rule that generntes or distributes electncity production and utilization facilities will not have a significant economic and which recovers the costs of this without reducing the protection of the impact on a substantial number of small electricity, either directly or indirectly, public health and safety.nis portion of entities.nc rule reduces certain minor through rates established by the entity the rule will be effective immediately information collection requirements on itself or by a separate regulatory upon publication. pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

the owners and operators of nuclear authority. Investor. owned utihties 533(d)(1). since the rule is expected to power plants lii.ensod pursuant to including generation or distribution reheve significantly the obligation of sections 103 nnd In4h of the Atomic subsidiaries, public utility districts.

cerlain upplicants with respect to Energy Art of 1954. as amended.42 municipalities, rural electric information required for construction U.S.C. 2133. 2134b. These electric utility.

cooperatives, and state and federal permits ar.d operating licenses, and also companics are dominant in their service spencies. including associations of any to reduce the amount of unnecessary.

arens. Accordingly, the companies that of the foregning, are included within the time-consuming staff review and own und operate nuclear power plants r, caning of **clectric utility."

adjudicatory proceedings. Although the are nnt within the definition of a small

3. In 12.1&l paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and rule will be applied to ongomg licensing business found in section 3 of the Small introductory paragraph (c)(4) are revised proceedings now pending and to issues Dusiness Act.15 ll.S.C. 032, or within or contentions therein. Union of the Small Dusiness Size Standards set ConcernedScientists v. AEC. 499 F.2d forth in 13 Crit Purt 121.

52.104 Notice of hearing.

1069 (D.C. Cir.1974). It should be clear Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of that the NRC neill.cr intends nor 1954. ns nmemled, the Energy M***

espects that the rule will affect the Reorg.mization Act of 1974. as amended.

scope of any issues or contentions and section 553 of Title 5 of the United (1) * *

• related to a cost / benefit analysis States Code, the following amendments (iii) Whether the applicant is performed pursuant to the National to 10 CFR Parts 2 und 50 nre published financially qualified to design and Environmental Policy Act of 1969. cither us a documeWsubject to codification.

construct the proposed facility, except in pending or future licensing

• PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR that this subject shed not be an issue if pioceedings for nuclear power plants.

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS the applicant is an electric utility LInder NEPA the issue is not wl.cther kM2 seeking a license to construct a the applicant can demonstrate production or utilization facility of the reads as follows,.

reasonable assurance of covering type described in 150.21(b) or 150.22 certain projected costs, but weather is Authority: Secs in1.1si. r.a Stat. itin. 953 merely what costs to the applicant of (42 US C 2N1. EHl. m.1:H. ns unn ndnl.

constructing and operating the plant are Pub. L s7-ets. 7e Stat. 4iu l42 t1S C 224:1:

(c),,,

8'C 2"I* Pub.1. 93 +8. 88 Stat.1242. no (4) Whether the upplicant is to be put into the cost. benefit balance.

"*y"M ',

'$'$,'l,','2$i,i,o technically and fmancially qualified to As is now the case, the rule of reason g

enn in b n&he b be auhd will continue to gobern the scope of tenued under secs 53.02, et. ini.104 tos. t.a w hnt costn are to be included in th" Sint. tuo. tu2. tos tun. 9a7. 9.ia, a s amende d by the operating license in nrcordance balance, and the resulting (42 US C 2073. ant. 21u. 21:u. 2134. 2135h with the regulations in this chapter.

determinations may still be the subject sec.102. Pub. L 91-19n. n3 Stat. a53 (42 US.C except that the issue of financial of htigation.Thus, financial 4332h sec. act. nn Stat.124n 142 US C 5n711 spulifications shall not be considered by qualificutions would not be expected to Scotmns2.102.2.104.2.105.2.721 also issued the presiding officer in an operating under secs.102.1n3.1m.105.1n3.189. r 8 Stat.

license henring if the upplicant is an berome an issue or contention in an ni d 42 ti. C NRC licens' g proceeding insofar as

{'

['

$"3 electric utihty seeking a license to m

NEPA might be involved.

2.20n-2.smdso haued under nec.1nn s.n Stat.

"I *' " '" " P""I"'h"" "' '.d III *" h U" The Commission has also concluded

,,,s H2 US C nua. set. zon. nn Sw. n46 H2 facility of the type descnbed m that udoption of the on. site property US C snin). sn iion,2 r.m-2 s.on. 2330 6 50.2t[b) or 150.22; damage insurnnce requirement, as 2372 nho iwned under sn:.102. Pub. I-n odihed, will better ensure that 91 199. ai slat. nit U2 IIS C ti el

4. gn Ap;,endix A of Part 2. Sections udequate protection of the health and Sertunn 23ona. 2319 ahn kannt under and Vill (b)(4) are revised to VI(c)(1)(ii 1, owl, 5 UM 5'it S"i*"s 235 t. 23m safety of the public is achieved.This rent) an 79; 23N aho inned undrr 5 US C 557.

requirement will be effective June 29, Sn omn 2 790 ahn hsurd un.lcr s,s:. Iu l.

g, Appendis A-Statement of Gnneral Policy e.n St.d. tun. as amendnl I,4 211 S C 2133).

and Procedura: Cnnduct of Proceedings for Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Sections 2 800-2.007 also issued undar s the issunne e of Construction Permits and U S C 553. Section12 pon abo inued under 5 f

xtu d

3 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission U S C ssa and sec. in2. tu Stat. ns3 (42 U.S.C

"',3"8

[s hi h a Icaring is has submittcd this rule to the Office of 4332). Sn-6on 2 nno aho lasned under s US C Hje. uired Under Satian 189A of the At Manugement and Dudget for such 553 and sec. 29. Pub. t n5-2'A 71 Stat. 573, as F egy Act of 1934 as Amended review as may be appropriata under the amended by Pub. f ns-as. 91 Stat.1483 (42 Paperwoik Redutoon Act of 1980 (Pub.

US C au91. Appendn A is ntno iuurd under

• b 4.

7,..

p [:J_

o"

13754 Fotleral Hegister / Vol. 47. No. 82 / Wednesday. Mare.h :11,11m2 / Rules und Remdallons

[esthearing Proceedings. Including the cooperatisrs, und state..nd federal of e.onstrut ting or operating a facility

• VI.

tnitut ikdsion agencies, including asnociations of any mu.t also ine.linic infinmation showing:

a of Ibc foregoing. aie included within the (i) The Irgul and Im.incial

[a l * *

• rneaning of "ciretric utihtyl*

relationships it has or proposes to haur it! * * *

7. In l 50.33. paragraph (f) n remrd to with its sine L holders or ownere.;

(ml Whrsher the appbrant in hnaru n.dly

,ggy,, gggjg,,,,

g;;j lbrir lin.orii.il alolity to suret any queldied to des 4n and e onstrue i the I dli ;atum to the entity t

proposed fordity, enwpl that this subica.t g 50.33 Contents of applications: general which Ac) have mcurred or propose to shall not tse an issue if the appinant is un informahon, nitor.nIHI riciloc utshly sce4 tnst a in enne to a unstnu I n ILich apphrntion must stat"-

(iiij Any either hiformation considered production or utihratmn fat.ility of the type necesnury by the Commission to enable described in l *>0.21(b) or 50.22.

(f)(1)Information suffic.irnt tie il to eleterinine the npplie. ant's finuncial demonstrate to the Conimist. ion the qualiIn ations.

' till. Prue reliere+ Applie al.te to t tperating financin! qualifications of the apphcant p) hucpl for electric utihty gjt,nse Proceedings to carry out, in ncrordance with

..pplicants for connta uction permits und regulations in this chapter, the notiuties operating licennes, the Commission may g)...

for which the permit or license is sought.

request an established entity or newly-(41 Whether the applirant is techmcally and f nancially qualified to engage in the llowever, no information on financial formed entity to submit additional or me inities to be authorized by the operating qualifications, including that in more detailed information respecting its in ense m ucturdance with the Cummission a paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this financinl arrangements and status of regu!stions. escept that the issue of financial section,is required in any application, funds if the Commission considern this quahfications shall not be considered by the nor shall any financial revirw he informution appropriate.This may t oard if the opplicant is an electnc utihty conducted. if the applicant is an electric include information regarding a utility applicant for a licenm to licenece's ability to cmitinue the conduct ut a nIc1y ie c pe r

n construct or operate a production or of the activities authon, zed by the 150 21(b) or $ 50.22.

utilization facility of the type described license and to permanently shut down in i 50.21[h) or 6 50.22.

the futihty and maintain it in a safn PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF (i)If the application is for a condition.

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION construction permit, the applicant shall

+

submit information that demonstrates

8. In $ 50.40, paragraph (b) is revised FACILITIES the applicant possesses or has to read as follows:

5.The nuthority citationJgr Pr.. 50is reasonshic assurance of obtaining the revised to read as follows:

funds necessary in covci estimated 350.40 common standards.

Authority: Secs.103,104.161.'182.183.18!1 construction costs and relaled fuel cych:

M Sta t. 93& 937. 948, 953. 954. 955. 9% a s costs.The applicant shall submit (b) The applicant is technically and

. amended (42 U.S C 2133,2134. 2201. 2 32.

cstimates of the total construction costs financially qualified to engage in the 2:33. :.a9); secs. 201. :o:. con, as Siai.1:43-of the facility and related fuel cycle proposed activitics in accordance with n44.124n (42 U S C Sat 1. 584:. 5a46). unirse costs, and shallindicate the murce[9] of - the regulations in this chapter. Ilowever, r se ut.

(421t S 2$2).

funds to cover these costs, no consideration of financial

~

S. ciions 50 an-so 81 al.so issued under sec.

lii)If the application is for an qualifications is necessary for an lo s. on % %4. n nmemicil (4: lt.S C ::.it).

operating licenne. tho uppliennt shall electric utdity nppliamt for a licenw for Sections Siutxmuo2 issued under sec.1uo.

submit information that demonsta ntes a production or utilization facility of the M Stal 955 [12 U.S C 2236). I'or the purposes the upplicant possesses or has type described in $ 50.21(b) or $ 50.22.

of sec. 223. M Stat osa, as amended (42 U.S C reasonable assurance of obtaining the un s necenary to com cWmated R In WR a new paragtnph (.v)is 48 5 ad (a

s e u sec.

toib.'6a Stat. 94a. as amended 142 ti.S.C opcinti n c sts f r the period of the ndded to scad as follows:

license, plus the estimated costs of S"oubil; il Salo tb) and (c) and 50.54 are Permanently shutting the facility down 550.54 conditions of neana.s.

ued umter sec.1cti, sa Stat. 949 as amended 142 U.S C. 2:01lill; and il 50.55(e).

und maintaining it in a safe comlition.

50 wtbl. 50 70. 5n 71. 50.72 and so.7a era The applicant shall submit estimaten for (w) Each electric utility licensee under i

issued under sec.101o. M Stat. 9% as total annual operalmg costs for each of this part for a production or utilization amended (4211.S C 22o1(011-the first five years of operation of the facility of the type described in

6. In i 50.2. n new paragraph (x) is facility and estimates of the rosts to

$ 50.21[h) or $ 50.22 shall, by June 29 udded to read as follows:

permanently shut down the facility and 1982, take reasonable steps to obtain on.

maintain it in a safe condition. The site property damage insurance 5 50.2 Destr0tions.

applicant shall also indicate the available at reasonable costs and on As used in this part.

source (s) of funds to cover these costs.

reusonable terms from private sources An application to renew or extend the or to demonstrate to the satiJaction of a

(s)" Electric utility" means any entity term of an operatinglicense must the Commission that it possesses an that generates or distnbulce electricity include the same financial information equivalent amount of protection und which re overs the costs of this as required in an upplicution for an i overinn tho facility. Prurider/. that:

ricctricity, either directly or indirectly, initiallicense.

(1)This insurnnce must have a through rates established by the entity (2) Except for electric utility minimum coverage limit no less than the itself or by a separate regulatory applisants for construction permits and combined total of (i) that offered by nothonty, inwstor. owned utilitics.

operating licenses, each appliontion for cither American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) im ludmg generation or distribution a construction permit or un operating und Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance subsidm*6cs, public utility districts, license submitted by a newly. formed pool (M AERP) jointly or Nuclear Mutual municipalitics. rural electric entity organized for the primary purpose 1.imited (NMt.). plus (ii) that offered by

.o N,

e

• " " ' " ~ * * " * " " ' "

h

7 reder:I Regletec / V11. 47. No. 62 / Wadnzday, M1rch 31,1tinz / Rules sinal Regulations 13755

,~., Nuclear Flectricinsur:nceI.imitrd fin:ncial protection it maintain, and th.-

12. In Appembs At to part 50 (NI:ll.). Ilic Edishn Electric Institute cources of Ifut insurance or protection.

parawapl 1lb)i. n-sised to read us (El'.ll. ANI and h1AERp jointly, or Nhtl.

10. In i twi f>7. puruns aph (a)(1) la I"II""*

us curse property insurance:

resised to rr.id as follows:

Areconhs M-N ndardisation of Design:

l2)The hcennec shall, within ninety M.mulas tusa..I fu.s lear Power Ne.suors; l00) da) ef any increases in policy I

'""*"'**I'I**'N'"*'*-

C nu si ne and opera? ion of Nudcar Power hmits for primary or excess cosernge (a) * *

• Reacton Manuf.n tunid Pur.nant to f """,,i ", ",","'""'"

that it has obtained pursaant to this -

(4) The nppliennt in tet.hnically and paragraph, take reasonable sicps to financinlly quahhed lo engage in the

,p,

obtam these increases: and actisitics unthori/ed by the operating p,3 i n,. g,n.,,,,...a n,r,,,

.,, ion subantted (3) When a licensee is prohibited from license in accordance with the gnunu..nt to t ran Hf; nhallim dareded at a purchasing en-site property damage regulations in this chapter.llowever.no

d. m.>nstraleon of the haanouel qualda:ntions insurance because of state or locallaw.

finding of financial qualifications is of the applu ant for the manufauunnig Lcense the licensee shall purchase the specific necessary for un electric utility I" "'T ""' N"' "'"u.f.o.f unng us.tady he amount of such insurance found by the opplicant for an operating license for a "Md',""",""'"','"'"";h

NRC to be reasonably available to that production or utilization facility of the licensee, or to obtairi an equivalent type described m. 150.21[h) or j 50.22.

1)nt. d.at Udnurini 1) C, thin 24th day of y,,,,,, p,q.

nmount of protection; and yo,.D:n Nio h ar Hrgi l. story Conmus Jun.

(4) The licensee shall report on April 1 of each year to the NRC as to the Appnndis C-litrmused)

Samuell 03' ilk.

present lescls of this insurance or

11. part 50 in amended by removing S,.,.,,,,,,,,,,y,1,.q.,,,,,,,,.,,,,.

m,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,u,,,,,,,,,

Appendis L.

asLt neG CODF. F"eu OI-M ass Es M

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

)

Docket No. 50-482 et. al.

)

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station,

)

Unit No.1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of " Appeal from Memorandum and Order of Dismissal of Financial Qualification's Contention and Dismissal of Kansans for Sensible Energy as Party"in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, on Jon e.7 3

,1982.

James P. Gleason, Esquire Kent M. Ragsdale Chairman General Counsel 513 Gilmoure Drive Missouri Public Service Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography A. Scott Cauger, Esquire University of Washington Assistant General Counsel Seattle, Washington 98195 Missouri Public Service Commission P. O. Box 360 Dr. 3. Venn Leeds Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096 Eric A. Eisen, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Myron Karman, Esquire 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Washington, D. C. 20036 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C. Edward Peterson, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Assistant General Counsel Kansas Corporation Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State Office Building - 4th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Topeka, Kansas 66612 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

1 l

PAGE 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Kaftsans for Sensible Energy Wanda Christy P. O. Box 3192 515 N. Ist Street Wichita, Kansas 67201 j

Burlington, Kansas 66839 Mary Ellen Salava Route 1, Box 56 Burlington, Kansas 66839 k h,. fl. O ~

'3t5hn M. Simpson' l

4 i

1 4

l l

._.