ML20006C572

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Stabilization & Decontamination Priority,Trusteeship Provisions & Amount of Property Insurance Requirements.

ML20006C572
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	01/15/1990
From:	James Fisicaro ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-54FR46624, RULE-PR-50 50FR46624-00008, 50FR46624-8, AD19-2-06, AD19-2-6, NUDOCS 9002080242
Download: ML20006C572 (6)

Text

...

m' n

.M DOCKET NUMBER L , PROPOS RULE S , a.,, , uw c.,,q

==~ApeL SVR 4'ss2 4 rw:: e DOCKETED L tte R:ck AR 72203 uswac w sm om i

'90 JAN 29 P2 :42 I

irFICE OF ECFETAfW uGCKEliflG A SEi'VtCI-PR ANC'i .

January 15, 1990 BCANB19004 . _

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document-Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Proposed Rule 10CFR Part 50 Stabilization and Decontamination Priority, Trusteeship Provisions, and Amount of Property Insurance Requirements FR, Vol. 54, No. 213 (November 6,1989)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) is submitting the following comments in response to the proposed rule change regarding stabilization and decontamination priority, trusteeship provisions, and amount of. property insurance requirements for nuclear power plants.

As delineated in the proposed rule, three petitions were submitted to the NRC. subsequent to the publication of the final rule in 1987. AP&L purchases all of the ANO property insurance from ANI/MAERP and NEIL, two of the

. petitioners, and is a member of the Edison Electric Institute serving on the Risk Management Committee, which is the third petitioner. Therefore, we have been monitoring each of the petitioner's activities closely. We are in agreement with the petitioners' proposals to the final rule. In substance, the NRC_ adopted the proposals but changed some of the proposed language and expanded the scope of certain proposals "so that NRC responsibilities and concerns are more clearly presented."

i 9002080242 900115 54 46624 PDR ,

y9

g ,

L3 j .

e Mr. Samuel J. Chilk l Page 2 4 January 15, 1990 t

The four points of contention contained in the petitioners' proposals and AP&L comments regarding the NRC amendments are as follows:

• Clarification of the scope and timing of the stabilization process  !

after an accident at a covered reactor '

The NRC accepted the $10.0 million threshold, changed the petitioners' proposed 30-day stabilization period priority to a 60-day priority on '

insurance proceeds, and accepted the petitioners' examples of stabilization actions, modifying the language somewhat and adding maintenance and sub-criticality.

We are in agreement with this proposed amendment.

• Clarification of procedures by which the NRC determines and approves expenditures of funds necessary for decontamination and cleanup Consistent with the petitioners' proposals, the NRC adopted language for post-accident cleanup plans, in order that unplanned insurance ,

proceeds may be used for activities other than those defined as stabilization and decontamination priority activities. The most significant NRC modification to the language proposed by the petitioners is found in S50.54(w)(4)(ii) and (iii), "... to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the licensee either to f resume operation of the reactor or to apply under S50.82 for authorit todecommissionthereactorandtosurrenderthelicensevoluntarily.{

The petitioners' proposals suggested "to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the licensee either to resume operation of the reactor or to undertake measures leading to decommissioning of the reactor, in a manner that is consistent with the-Commission's occupational exposure limits in 10CFR Part 20."

We are in agreement with the currently proposed wording. <

• A change in the terminology of the required insurance from " property" insurance to " decontamination liability" insurance In order to insulate decontamination priority insurance proceeds from indenture provisions and because all nuclear property insurers now are willing to offer hybrid policies, the NRC adopted the petitioners'  ?

proposals to reouire insurance that clearly states that any proceeds must be payable first for stabilization of the reactor and next for decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site.

We are in agreement with this proposed amendment.

m

.  ;

)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 3 January 15, 1990 i

• ~ Rescission of the provision that proceeds of the required insurance  :

are to be paid to an independent trustee J L

In the final rule of 1987, the NRC included the trusteeship provisions L" to assure that decontamination and cleanup expenses received priority over other post-accident activities. The NRC states "... a combination

, of the hybrid policy, explici_t procedures for the payment of claims, i

and recent decisions in aankruptcy cases may more effectively protect -

decontamination and cleanup expenses from competing claims."

i The NRC has reserved the right to implement the trusteeship t u requirements in individual cases, if warranted, and is apparently seeking legislative to receive and retain such funds itself. The proposed rules contain no indication however, of whether the commission believes the proposed legislation would also authorize the NRC to direct insurers to pay the NRC rather than policy beneficiaries, or whether the agency thinks it already has such authority.

We are in agreement with this proposed amendment, as written.

One issue not proposed by the petitioners, but of which the NRC has taken advantage-in its solicitation of comments of the proposed rules, is a solicitation of comments regarding the appropriate level and indexing of the required amount of insurance. The NRC indicates that in the 1987 rulemaking, it had no effective means of determining future costs of accident stabilization, decontamination, and cleanup other than by periodic  ;

updates of the study from which the current $1.06 billion requirement was derived (NVREG/CR-2601). The NRC solicitation for comments continues with suggestions that a mechanism similar to the one used in its final decommissioning regulations (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988) may be appropriate for accident cleanup inflation. A significant component of the mechanism's formula would be reactor size and type. Additionally, in its Regulatory Analysis, the NRC states "Although the offect of these formulas, if developed and adopted, would increase the required amount of insurance for some licensees, there should be little impact on insurance costs to licensees because almost all licensees buy the maximum amount of insurance >

available."

We believe that the $1.06 billion presently required is as appropriate as '

any calculation generated by formulas including reactor size and type. To fully define decontamination and cleanup costs, many accident scenarios and consequences of those scenarios would have to be developed, costs assigned, and mitigation plans produced, in addition to methods for inflation

~

indexing. Additionally, its quite probable that each reactor would require ,

a different level of insurance, based on this assessment. In our opinion, the present level required is appropriate and there is no need to create a mechanism for accident cleanup inflation. The finan::ial impact statement made in the Regulatory Analysis may presently be true, as most licensees do

' c.

~

l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 4 January 15, 1990 t

purchase all available capacity. Presently AP&L does not purchase all available capacity. If the rule were changed to require purchase of all capacity at this time, the cost to AP&L would be $846,000 per year.

Additionally, this comment suggests that utilities will always purchase all capacity offered by the insurers, which indicates the insurers would determine how much capacity is enough and directly impact utilities' budgets in the process. . .

In summary, we are in agreement with the proposed amendments, as written and

. feel that the present requirement of $1.06 billion is adequate.

l Additionally, we do not believe there is a need for developing formulas for establishing base requirement amounts or escalation factors.

Should you have any questions or comments, I would be glad to provide whatever clarification necessary.

Very truly yours, s

8 .

Y===lO=A*=

ames J. Fisicato Manager, licensing JJF/SAB/lw cc:. Mr. Robert Martin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV-611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road ,

Russellville, AR 72801 '

Mr. C. Craig Harbuck NRRProjectManager,RegionIV/ANO-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 G

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 5 January 15, 1990 Mr. Chester Poslusny NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20.852