ML20050C317
| ML20050C317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080398 | |
| Download: ML20050C317 (10) | |
Text
.
N s,
/
o Q
,.g.S' q[_[ojl C
~
<:A -3 UNITED STATES OF Al1 ERICA g
g%
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING POARD 7
\\
In the Matter of
)
N m
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-395
)
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
NRC STAFF t0 TION TO DISMISS CONTENTION 2 INTRODUCTION On March 31, 1982, the Conmission published a final rule, effective irrediately, in the Federal Register eliminating entirely the financial qualifications review and findings for an electric utility applicant and providing that the financial cualifications of such an applicant are not anong the issues to be considered in pending or future construction permit and operating license proceedings. 47F.R.13750,13753.1/
Among the contested issues in this proceeding is a contention which asserts that the Applicant lacks the financial qualifications necessary to operate and decommission the Sumner plant in conformance with Connissionregulations.5/ The evidentiary record on this contention was 1/
A copy of this notice is attached.
2/
Specifically, cc stention 2 states:
(a) the App'icant lacks the financial qualifications necessary to safely operate and decommission the Sunner station in compliance with NRC rules and regulations; (b) the sum allocated by the Applicant for tise decommissioning of the Summer Plant (less than $10 million) is grossly inadequate and does not conform to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.33(f).
DESICUATED ORICIHAL 8204080398 820407 Cert 4m.q r y
c pDR ADOCK 05000395 G
PDR l
closed on.luly 17, 1981.
Related findings were filed by the parties in August, 1981. No decision on this contention has been issued.
DISCUSSION In light of the Connission's elimination of financial qualification issues from nuclear licensing proceedings, contention 2 is no longer a litigable issue in this case. The Appeal Board recently upheld a Licensing Board's denial of an untimely intervention petition which sought solely to raise an issue of financial qualifications on the primary grounds that such issue was no longer cognizable in NRC construction permit proceedings. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-671,14 NRC 01 arch 31,1982). Accordingly, the Licensing Board need not and should not decide the financial qualifications issues raised in contention 2 and should dismiss that contention on the ground that it raises issues that are not to be considered under the Conmission's amended regulations.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff hereby moves that contentit/ 2 be immediately dismissed from the proceeding without further consideration.
Respectfully submitted, f$v k' Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of April,1982.
f 13750 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March St.1932 / Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY (2)(1) Also eliminated entirely these z,'
-te and also requiring COMMISSION requirements for operating liosase h=aaa== to descastrate their abibty to ll '.
applicents; or clean up after en seddent.gy contreet.
10 CFR Parts 2 and 30 gli) Retained these requirements foe stiBtles, stiBty youps, and utiBty operatinglicense e f cants to the osotractors support completely li l -
EAmination of Review of Financial extent they require submiselos of eliminating the t'a===alaala='s Am===Aa1 Quellfications of Electric UtNties in information conce the costs of
@'tions requireasota,indness l
Laconsing Hearinga For Nucleer Power permanently shutting wn the facility
--loning.Further stilities and and maintaining it in a safe condition their representatives generaDy appens
. Plante (i.e., decommissioning costs).
requiring mandatory property damage NuclearJagulathry Concurrently,the Cominiselon lasurance. Comments from legni osansel Assiscv:
proposed amending its regulations to generally resected the internts and i
A AcTices: Final rule.
require, on an Interim basis, power views of their utility,insuranos,ce nector licensees to " maintain the peblic intervet clients. Governmental n dNuclearRegulatory maximum amount of sonumerdelly or5anisations and individuals resected Commission is amending its regulations available on-site property damage a spectrum of views, although most to eliminate entirely requirements fer insurance, or an equivalent amount of were against eliminating the Saancial financial qualifications review and protection (e.g letter of credit, bood, or quellScations review. Some states and findings for electric utilities that are self insurance), from the time that the munidpalities identified potentia!!egal applying for construction permits or Commission Erst permits ownership.
conflicts between certain provisions of 1
operating licenses for production or possession, and storage of spedal the proposed rufemaking and state law.
utilization facilities. The Commission is nuclear material at the site of the A summary of the comments is I
also amending its regulations to require nuclear reactor."
prnented tw!ow.Those who are in the Federal Register notice, the laterested may obtain copies of speciSc power reactor licensees to obtain on. site Commission based its proposal for thiscomments from the Public Document property damage insurance, or an 3
equivalent amount of protection (e.g rulemaking. In part, upon the statutory Room or the NRC Secretary under
)
letter of credit. bond, or self insurance).
basis in the Atomic Energy Act of1954 designation PR-50(46 FR M786).by from the tinie that the Commission first as amended ("AEA") for the financial writing to: Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Issues an operating license for the qualifications regulations andits Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
dascussioninPublicService Companyof Weshington D.C.20555.
I nucleat teaetor.
New Hompshire. el of. (Seabrook A. Reducing or eliminating the EFFEcisvt Dain:For amendments Station. Units 1 and 2) CL1-78-1,7 NRC Commis.sion 's financial quahfications i
I eliminating financial qualifications 1 W8) @biooP). In est decistu
,,yj,,, Ihose arguing against reducing i
review (l 2.104. Sections VI and VIII of and po*
or elimina e Commission's Appendix A to Part 2. I12.4. 50.2, g,
d f h Snandal que cations review make Appendix C to Part 50. Appendix M.
existing financial ualificaticas review four major points. First, they discount paragraph 4.(b) to Part 50.150.33(f), add has done little toI entify substantial NRC's presumption that public utilities 5 50.40). Mar. 31.1982. For amendments health and safety concerns at nuclear can meet the financial demands of establishing on. site property damage power plants.However,because the constructing and operating nuclear insurance requirement (ll 50.54(w) and Commission believed that there are plants. Citing Seabrook. WPPSS. TMI.
50.57). June 291982. In accordance with matters important to safety which may South Texas and other examples.
1 the Paperwork Reduction Act of1900.
be affected by financial considerations, commenters maintain that utilities often (44 U.S.C. 3507). the reporting provision it requested comments regarding the have experienced and will continue to 3
that is included in aragraph (w)(5) of ppe of NRC financial revtew that would experience difficulty in raising funds to i50.54 has been su mitted for approval wus effectively on considerations that cover capital, operating. and to the Office of Management and Budget night adversely affect safety
- maintenance costs (particularly in I
(OMB). It is not effective until OMB I
approval has been obtained.
II.Public Comments on the Proposed periods of high interest rates and Rule overcapacity), whether or not such costs poR ruRTHER wCRMATIOed COsf7ACT:
can be recovered in the rate base
(
Jim C. Petersen. Office of State Over too comments were received on Grough Construction Work in Pmsmu P
Programs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the proposed rulemaking and have been I'
- ' d Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 categorized as follows:
00',
,ters m a t st (telephone 301-492-9883).
Private citizens-es comments received the inability to recover all costs Public interest groupe-30 comments received provides an incentive for utilities to SUPPLEMENTARY 186PORelAT10sc Insurance groupe-2 comments received skimp on important safety com nuts L Background tasa! ciounsel-e comments received and quality assurance stand
- s. Some Covernmental organisations and On Au6ust 18,1981, the Commission ladividuale-to comments received commenters die the discussion of published a notice of pro sed Utilitiu and utility groupe-se comuments financial disincentives in the Rogovin rulemaking in the F Register (46 received Report (Three Afile Island: A Report to FR 41788) concerning requirements for Architect <nginars and contractore-a the Commission and the Public. Mitchell commats received Rogovin. Director, January 1980)to finandal qualifications review and findings for electric utilities that are All private dtizen comments and all support their views. Another commenter applying for permits or licenses for but two public interest group comments suggests that utilities will be tempted to production or stilisation facilities. As oppose reducing or eliminating the lower wages which would lead to higher pioposed, the rule would have:
Commission's finandal qualification turnover and, thus, to employment of (1) Ehminated entirely finandal review requirements.However, they inadequately trained personnel.'Itird.
qualifications review requirements for generally support imposing immediate commenters maintain that NRC construction permit applicants; and decommissioning financing inspection efforts and capabilities are l
I
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 13751
~
indequate to provide sufficient indicated its support for the substance the 'g-- r of,a. - - - w.g assurance of safety. Esen if violations of the proposed rule-elimination of the funding to public health and safety, but are found. some commenters argue that financial qualifications review because rather reospians that any action on NRC enforcement efforts are of the lack of any demonstrable tank decommlea6aming is asase appropeiste in inadequate. Fourth. the commenters between public health and safsty the context of the generic d-- -*-
assert that the financial qualiScations concerr.s and a stility's abSity to make now being asoducsad. Until that sture, res few function la atstutorily required the requisite financial showing the Co==saa== bas concdeded diet it is by 42 U.S C. 2:32(a). (c) and (d).
He actual financial situation premature to incluJe any final danision Further.many of those arguing against analyzed in that case has not changed.
on decomrnissioning in this fhielrule on ehminating the flaancial quahfications Here is no evidence that the safety of finandal qualifications. Because the resiew recommend that the Commission the public has been adversely aNected generic decommissioning rule la should at least retain that portion of the by Public Service Company of New scheduled to be published in 1982 and review pertaininJr to decommissioning.
Hampshire's (PSCNH) difficulties in since all licensees will be required to They state that tSe ongoing obtaining financing. lt is true that to meet any financial requiremente decommissioning rulemaking is no raise capital. PSCNH has sold part of its imposed as a result of that ruleinaking.
substitute fe* an immediate general ownership in the Seabrook plant, but there should be little practical effect in requirement te demonstrate fmancial such action does not have any temporarily eliminating consideration of capabihty to decommission a nuclear demonstrable link to any safety decommissiordng funding from licensing production on utilization facihty safely problems. Similarly. citing WPPSS-activities Moreover.lf decommissioning and espeditiously. Man) expressed the experience is not convincing. because financing issues were continued to be sfew that the generic decommissioning WPPSS'tesponse (and that of most other allowed in current !! censing stud) would not be completed in a utilities encountering financial proceedings. two undesirable effects renonab:e time.
difficulties) has been to postpone or may result. First, there would be en B contrast, those favoring the cancel their plants. actions clearly not increased chance that findings in such 3
Comm2ssion's proposed reduction or inimical to public health and safety cases might contradict evolving chmination of the fmancial under the Atomic Energy Act.
Commission policy in this ares Second.
quahfm t.ons reGs. function generally As to the third point raised in one positive gain from the final rule support the Commission's reasoning that opposition to the proposed rule, in the would be countered. in that there could such a reuew has done litt:e to identify absence of facts to the contrary, the be expected to be little.if any. reduction substantite health and safety problems Commission cannot accept unsupported in the contentions before the licensing at nuclear pow er p;.nts and that the statements that, as a general matter its boards on financial qualifications Commission s inspection and inspection and enforcement efforts are issues. thereby not significantly enforcement activities provide more inadequate.ne examples that reducing the time and effort devoted to effective protection of pubbe health and commenters cite (e.g., South Texas) those issues.
safet). Most utihties and their appear to substantiate rather than B. Mondatotyprcpertyinsurancefor associates support complete elimination undercut. the Commission's view that decontaminadon. Comments are of the fmancial qualifications review, any violations of safety regulations are similarly divided on the issue of including prosis;ons pertaining to being found and corrected and that,in requiring on. site property insurance to decommissioning. Dese commenters say event. such violations cannot be cover decontamination expenses maintain that,if any regulations relating shown to arise from a licensee's alleged resulting from an accident. These who to the financing of decommissioning are lack of financial quahfications.
support keeping the fmancial adopted. they should await completion With respect to the final assertion that qualifications review generall) support of the Commission's generic rulemaking the financial qualifications review requiring a utility to demonstrate proof on decommissioning.
furetion is statutorily mandated. Section ofits ability to clean up after an The Commission has received no 182a of the AEA.42 U.S.C.2232(a),
accident. The Commission interprets comments to persuade it to change clearly indicates that such function is these comments as supporting significantly its reasoning on the within the Commission's discretionary mandatory property insurance. insofar proposed fmancial qualiacations rule, authority, but la not mandated. As noted as it covers accident cleanup costs. The As indicated above,many of these in the proposed rule, this interpretation other ccmnienters favoring elimination opposing the proposed rule change have of Section 182a has been approved by of the financial qualifications rule concluded that experience with the United States Court of Appeals for generally either (1) oppose mandatory Seabrook. WPPSS and other plants the First Circuit in New England coverage outright because of recent self-demonstrates the close connection Coolidon on NuclearPbl/udon v. NRC.
initiated moves by the utility industry to betw een fmancial qualifications and 582 F.2d 87. 93 (1978). affirming the obtain insurance or (2) favor substantial I
pubhc health and safety. The NRC's Seabrook decision.
modification of the rule to clarify Commission disag*ees. As to the first On balance, after careful several ofits provisions.
I point raised by commenters opposing consideration of the rammenta
%e first group of commenters do not ehmination of the financial submitted and of the factors discussed generally state their reasons for favoring quahfications review, the Commission in the notice of proposed rulamaking, mandatory insurance except for an does not find any reason to consider,in the Commission has elected to undefined and non-quantifiable general l
a vacuum, the general ability of utilities promulgate the first of the two benefit in protecting public healta and Io finance the constrwetion of new alternatives outhned in the proposed safety. Some indicated that the amount generation facGities. Only when joined rule.l.e eliminate the financial ofinsurance currently available la not with the issue of adequate protection of qualifications review of electric utilities sufficient to cover accidents such as the public health end safety does this entirely at the CP and OL stages.
TMI-2. However. beesuse of remntly issue become per.inent. As to this, the including elimination of any announced increases in the amount of commenters* second point, the considerstion of decomnessioning coverage available and the continuing l
Commission in its ScobmoA decision funding his is not meant to discount evolution in the insurance markets. this i
l
l
)
i Federal Register /_Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday, March 31. Ita2 / Rules and ReSulations 13752 concern may not be as great es might Commicolon disagrees with the poa! tion authority to require sech additional otherwin be me case.
talso by some commenters that it is infonnation in ladividual cases as may As indicated above, the second group unfair to nearrt owners cf m.ttar power be necessary for the tw.-s s to of commenters-primarily utilities and reactors to nquire inrursace gesetly detennine whether an opphostion 1
their representativee-object raore to exceeding the cost ef reptedas the should be tad or denied ce whethee l
the wording of certain provisions of the facility. A TMI-2 type socient nonid a license be modilled or reesked.
proposed on site property damage weU require covense approechtna $1 See, for examph, the fourth sentamos of insurance rule than to the requirement billion. no matter what the esigtnas Section tsaa of the AEA.
.no itself. Several commenters recograe value or size of 11 e fecility.h*
change in the present powers of thei the practical e5ect of requiring Commission expects that the required Commisalon wie regard k the Smansiel mandatory insurance has been reduced, insurance will cover rwasonable quahBcdevkw of neo-sew particularly since the DC-2 accident.
decontamination and cleanup costa applicants for Part 80 licanam ud be because most utilities will buy who ever associated with the property damage made.In addinon, an aqdon e or amount of coverage is offered, within resulting from an peddent at the waiver from the rule would be possible reasonable hmits. as a matter of good licensed facility. Until completion of k re@ h subahion of Aael business udgment. Other commenters studies evaluatmg the cost of cleanics information from a partied v electric Nmtaxu indicate at the Commission's up accidents of v severity,it is.
estimates of annualpremiums required prudent to require or all power reactors unhhapphcantif W p
ggg for a typica! reactor may beve been a reasonable amount ofinsurance for anladivicuallicensing baring.
decontamination expense B.hoedochmpacts. Aleo as understated. Estimated remiums for
)
coverage currently avaifable (i.e., $3753. Several persons commented that indicated above and in the propwed I
I or $450 million) are 53 million per year reactor licensees should not be required to maintain on site property dacap rule, the Commission matinues to l
In hght of these comments end for the insurance until the operating licensa has expect that the final rule will. in normal I
for a typical two-unit site.
reasons stated in the proposed rule, the been received. With hel merely clored circumstances, reduce the ti.no and effort which applicants,licer:swes, the Commission has decided to retain the at a reacter, the chsre of an accident NRC staff and NRC adjudicatory boards requirement in the final rule that electric requirm' g extensive derantamination is desote is reviewing the applicant's or utthties must have on site property extremely remote. The Commission licensee's financial qua!!$ cations.%e damage insurance, but several agrees and has cha ged the rule modifications has e been made pursuant accordingly, so that such insurance need rule will eliminate staff review in cases to the comments received. The following be in force only when the utihry is where. the applicant is an electric utility, changes have been incorporated into the licensed to operate the reactor.
pnsumed to be able to finance activities
- 4. Several Texas utilities commented to be authorized under the permit or text of the final rule on property that the Texas conentutien(and, license.
insurance:
- 1. The definition of " maximum apparer.tly. the Louisiant and Idrho C. License Amendments. %e available amount" has been clarified.
constitutions) prohibus certain alimination by this rule of the financial 1
m:t cipal utihties from purchr.s qualif cations review fer electric utility This term could have been interpreted to i
rnean that utilities would be required to inwance either offered by num applicants also applies to any electric switch their insurance coverage to the lesnrance companies or involving utilities that become co-owners via carrier offenng the greatest amount at retroactive assessmenta %e an.endments to existing pernJts or any particular time. Another Commission has nvised the rule to licenses.From time to ume, original interpretation could be that utilities addresa these concerne.
owners of production or utilization would be required to obtain coverage
- 5. One commenter discussed the need fees mae arrangements to transfer from the two mejor insurers or any other to clarify the amount of time required of
' electric u ea o cf the k
insurer that decides to enter this market.
- he licersee to obtain not only initia!
bp b ty.
y Finally, the " maximum available could insurance but also subsequent increases amendment request is then filed, wh!ch increment no matter offered. Another suggested that many seeks to add the new partner as co-have included anf or how restrictive the regulated utilties may have difficulty in owner and co-licensee. For the purposes how highly price terms and conditions.The Conc:dssion's obtaining approval te purchase oMa rule, sWaqo de simaton intent is neither to disrupt the insurance insurance within 90 days.ne elating to prelicensing antitrust review markets by forcing utilities to switch Commission has revised the rule to of these new owners, the amendment their insurance carriers unnecessarily reflect its view that so days is a request comprises the initial bcense not to require utilities to obtain reasonable time in which to take appliction by the new, prospective co-insurance under untensonable terms reasonable steps to obtain both initial owner, even though the amendment and conditions.The rule has been and any additional on-site property req est may actually be filed by the changed to clarify the Commission's damage insurance.
Present bcensee and owner. Eq., Detroit 6.The phrase
- commercially Mison Company (Enrico Ferrai Atcmic intent. specifically in i 50.54(w).
available" insur:nce could have been Power Plant, Unit No. 2). ALAB-4M.7
- 2. Some commenters maintained that the proposed rule should apply only to construed to exchde insbers auch as NRC 752, E5, n.7 (ur78). Since the same insurance covering decontamination of a NM1.and NEll.The Con mission financial qualifications review i
facility suffering an accident and not to recognizes this possible but error 2eous considerations apply to all electric "all risk" property damage Insurance.
interpretation and has changed the utility applicanta, regardless of the Because decontamination lasurance is wording of the rule accordingly.
Particular manner in which their
)
the Commisalon's only concern from the E O eerr = M loos application is tendered to the NRC,it point of view of protecting public health A.ltequirementfor Ac'ditional should be clear that this firial rule J
and safety, coverage to rep. ace the Information. As indicated in the appiies to Eny request for an existing facility on an "all risk" basis is proposed rule, the Comerosion does not amendment that wodd,if granted, beyond the scope of the Commission'a intend to waive or redoquish its residual include a new electric utility as a co-authority. By the same ressor&g, the s
l i
v 2
Feder:1 Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31, 1982 / Rules and Regulaticas 13753 owner and co-licensee in a production I. 9H11).The date on which the sec. 86 Pub. L 91400, se Stat.1472' (42 U.S C or utihzation facility.
information collection requirements of 21361 i
W. Conclusion this rule become ehetive, h In summary, the Commission has advised to the contrary, accoedingly,
- 2. In 12.4. new paragraph (s)is added i
concluded that the adoption of the rule reflects inclusion of the ao day penod to read as foHows*-
which the Act allows for such review.
gs.4 seguemana.
[
hso't es e et i rith Regulatory Flexibility Cartincasian As used in this part, demonstrating financial qualifications of In accordance with the Regulatory electric utilities that are applying to Flexibility Act of t900. 5 U.S.C.co6(b).
(s)" Electric utility" means any entity g
construct and operate nuclear the NRC hereby certifies that this rule that generates or distributes electricity production and utilization facilities will not have a significant economic and which recovers the costs of this e
}
without reducing the protection of the impact on a substantial nuc3ber of small electricity, either directly or indirectly.
public health and safety. This portion of entities. The rule reduces certain minor the ru:e will be effective immediately -
information collection requirements on through ratee established by the entity k
upc,ti publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
the owners and operators of nuclear itself or by a seperste regulatory authority. Investor. owned utilities
$33[d):1). since the rule is expected to power plants licensed pursuent to including generation or distribution relieve significantly the obligation of sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic certsin applicants with respect to Energy Act of1954, as amended.42 subsidiaries, public utility districts.
Information required for construction municipalities, rural electric permits and operating licenses. and also U.S.C. 2133,2134b.These electric atility cooperatives, and state and federal companies are dominant in their service to reduce the amount of unnecessary.
areas. Accordingly, the companies that of the foregoing are included within the agencies. including associations of any time-consumm, g staff rMew and adjudicatory proceedings. Although the own and operate nuclear power plants are not within the definition of a small meaning of " electric utility."
rule will be applied to ongoir licensing business found in section 3 of the Small
- 3. In $2.104 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and proceedings now pending an toissues Business Act.15 U.S.C. 632. or within introductory paragraph (c)(4) are revised of contentions therein. Union of the Small Business Size Standards set A
I "'d foll **-'
ConcernedScientists v. AEC 499 F.2d 1009 (D C. Cir.1974). It should be clear forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
I 2.104 Netion of hearing.
that the NRC neither intends nor Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of expects that the rule will affect the 1954. as amended. the Energy scope of any issues or contentions Reorganization Act of1974, as amended.
(b)...
related to a cost / benefit analysis and section 553 cf Title 5 of the United (1) * * *
?.
performed pursuant to the National States Code, the following amendments (iii) Whether the applicant is Environmental Policy Act of 1969. either to lo CFR Parts 2 and 50 are published financially qualified to design and in pending or future hcensing as a documer,t subject to codification.
construct the proposed facihty, except proceedmgs fer nuclear power plants.
PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR that this subject shall not be an issue if Under NEPA. the issue is not whether DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS the applicant is an electric utility the apphcant can derronstrate
. The authonty citation for Part 2 seeking a license to construct a reasonable assurance of covering reads as follows production or utilization facility of the certain proj,eted costs, but weather is Authoriry Sees.161.181, as Stat. eea. 953 type described in 150.21(b) or 150.22.
I merely what costs to the applicant of (42 U.S C 2201. 2231). sec.191. as amended.
constructing and rperating the plant are Pub. L 87-615. 76 Stat. 400 (42 U.S C 2241);
(c) * *
- 4 to be put into the ec.tt. benefit balance.
sec. 201. Pub. L 93-438. as Stat.1242. as As is now the casc. tie rule of reason amended by Pub. L 94-79 se Stat. 413 (42 (4) Whether the applicant is h
will continue to govem the scope of technically and financially qualified to Q"154 engage in the activities to be authorized ue de w 5 8
3 what casts are to be included in the Se balance, and the resulting Stat eso. e32. e35. ess. e37. s3a. as amended by the operating hcense in accordance determinations may still be the subject (42 U.S C 2073. 20o3. 2nt. 2133. 2134. 2135):
with the regulations in this chapter, sec.102. Pub. L 91-90. 83 Stat. 353 (42 U.S C except that the issue of financial oflitigatior Thus. financial 43321. sec. act, as Stat.1240 (42 U.S C 58711 quahfications shall not be considered by
. qualifications would not be expected to Sections 2.102, 2.104. 2.105. 2.721 eleo issued E
' ccome ein issue or contention in an under secs.102.103.104.105.1a3. tes. es Stat.
the presiding officer in an operstmg o
' NRC bcensing proceeding insofar as s
.e3 am license hearmg if the applicant is an electric utility seeking a license to NEPA rmght be mvolved.
1 33 : e uone i
The Ccm n ssion has also concluded 2.200-2.20s also inued under sec. tas, se Stat.
operate a production or utilization that edopon of the on site property 955 (42 U.S C 22361. sec. 20s, as Stat.1246 (42 facility of the type described in F
damage insurance requirement, as U.S C 5846) Sections 2.600-2 606. 2.73o, 150.21(b) or $ 50.22:
2.772 also issued undet sec.102. Pub. L modified. will better ensure that
+
91-190. 83 Stat 853 (42 U.S.C 4332L adequate protection of the health and Sections 2.700s. 2.719 also issued under
- 4. In Appendix A of Part 2. Sections E
safety el the public is achieved. This 5 U.S C 554 Sections 2.754. 2.760.
VI(c)(1)(iii) and VIII(b)(4) are revised to requirement will be effective June 29 2.770 also issued under 5 U.S C 557.
read as follows:
J 1984 Section 2.790 also issued under sec.103^
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement t>4 Stat 936. as amended (42 U.S C 2133).
Appendia A-Staternent of General PoEcy Sections 2 800-2.a07 also issued under 5 and Procedure: Conduct of T---
for tb Inuance of Construction renoits' sod M S 3 S]'
02.s' at bhU5C Operating Ucenses for Production and The Nuclear Regulatory Commission d,
)
has submitted this rule to the Office of
(
- i htanagement and Budget for such 43321 Section 2 aos also inued under b U.S C UN o Faqn for Wch a Heados Is g
review as may be appropriate under the 553 and sec. 29. Pub. L 85-256. 71 Stat. 579. as uito Under section ISSA o% Atoauc i
Ps;erwork Reduction Act of1m(Pub amended by Pub L 95-200. 91 Stat.1483 (42 Energy Act of 1954, as Amended 3
U S C 2039). Append 2 A is also issued under hs M
l
..e e'
, g54 Fedsrol Register / Vol. 47. No. 62 / Wednesday. March 31, 1962 / Rules and Regulations VI Pc:thearing Proceedings. locludag the cooperatives, and state and federal of cosstR4;M. or operating a fact!!ty Initial Decision agencies including associations of any must also include information showing-of the foregolus, are included within the (i) He legal and #aaad='
5 ic) * *
- meaning of " electric utill y."
relationships it has or proposes to have DI***
- 7. In i 50.33. jaragraph (f) is revised to with its etockholders or owners:
(5) Whether the app'Jcent is financiaUy read as follows:
(ii)%eir Anandat ability to meet any l
qu.hfied to design and construct the ocatractual obligation to the entity which they have incumd oe propose to b eft n t be a is's e I
aa incur, and b
electnc utihty seeking 6 licanoe to cons:tuct a Each apphcation must stam (iii) Any other information consideeed production or utili.abon fadlity of the type necessary by the Commission to enable described m i so.21(b) or 50.22
[f)(1)Information sufBelent to it to detarmine the applicant's financial I
demonstrate to the Commission the qualifications.
. VUI. Prixedures Appticable to Operating financial qualifications of the applicant (3) Except for electric utility Licsnse Proceedings to carry out,in accordance with applicants for construction permits and i
regulations in this chapter the activities operating licenses. the Commission may g)...
for which the permit or license is sought. request an established entity or newly-(4; Whether the applicant is technically e
and $r.ancially qual:fied to engage in the However, no information on financial formed entity to submit additional or actmtses te be au'honred by the operating qualifications.includm' g that in more detailed information respectm' g its ticense in accordance with the Commission'a paragraphs (f)(1) (i) and (ii) of this financial arrangements and status of egdat: ens except that the issue of f.mancial esction. is required in any application, fundt if the Commission considers this qt. elf. cations shall not be considered by the not shall any financial review be information appropriate.This may board if the apphcant is an electric utihty conducted,if the applicant is an electric include information regarding a t$e'nYa'cSI$t f tUeNe[e enIe$in utility applicant for a license to licensee's ability to continue the conduct i
construct or operate a production or of the activities authorized by the 550.21tb) or 15022 utilization facility of the type described license and to permanently shut down in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22.
the facihty and mamtain it in a safe PAR 150-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 150.40, paragraph (b) is revised FACILITIES the applicant possesses or has to read as follows:
- 5. The authority citation for part 501:
reasonable assurance of obtaining the revistd to read as follows:
funds necessary to cover estimated
$50.40 Common standards.
Authcrity: Secs 103.104.161.182.183.189, construction costs and relatAi fuel cycle se Stzt 936 937 948. 953. 954. 955. 956, as.
costs.De applicant shall suomit (b)The applicant is technically and j
cmend.ed (42 U.S C 2133. 21M 2201,2232.
estimates of the total construction costs financially qualifed to engage in the 2233. 2:391 s ycs 201. 202. 2o6,88 Stat.1243.
of the facility and related fuel cycle proposed actidties in accordance with
! " J
c sts, and shallindicate the source (s) of the regulations in this chapter. However, i*bU $ c 1m 124 i
Es 55e e
funds to cover these costs.
no considerat20n of financial
,g n
under see 122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C 21521 Sections 50 80-50 81 aise issued under sec.
(ii)If the application is for an qualifications is necessary for an 184. 68 Stat 9H. as amended (42 U.S C 2234).
operating license, the applicant shall electric utility applicant for a license for Sections 501o>50102 issued under sec.186, submit information that demonstrates a production or utilization facility of the 68 Stet 955 [42 t' S C. 22361 For the purposes the applicant possesses or has type described in $ 50.21(b) or $ 50.22.
of sec 223. (A Stat 958. as amended (42 U S C reasonable assurance of obtaining the un Mce888ry i e ver edm8
- 9. In 150.54, a new paragraph (w)is
[a eIu d h48 Operation costs for the period of the added to read as follows:
5 d
e:
sec.
161b. 68 Stat 948 as arnended (42 U.S C.
license, plus the estimated costs of
, cub)) Il 5010 lbl and (c) and 5 :54 are permanently shutting the facility down 150.54 Constions of scenaea.
ssued under sec.161i. 68 Stat. 949, as amended (41 U S C. 2201(i)). and il 50.55(e).
and maintaining it in a safe condition.
50 % bl. 50 70 50 71. 50 72. and 50.78 are De applicant shall submit estimates for (w) Each electric utility licensee under moed ur. der sec.161o. 68 Stat. 950. as total annual operating costs for each of this part for a production or utilization amended [42 U.S C. 2201(o)).
the first five years of operation of the facility of the type described in 6 In i 50.2, a new paragraph [x]is facility and estimates of the costs to
$ 50.21(b) or 150.22 shall, by June 29, i
added to read as follow s-permanently shut down the facility and 1982 take reasonable steps to obtain on.
maintain it in a safe condition.The site property damage insurance 1 50.2 Definmons.
applicant aball also indicate the available at reasonable costs and on As used in this part.
source (s) of funds to cover these costs.
reasonable terms from private sources An application to renew or extend the or to demonstrate to the satisfaction of (x)" Electric utility" means any entity term of an operating license must the Commission that it possesses an that generates or distributes electricity include the same financialinformation equivalent amount of protection and which recovers the costs of this as required in an application for an covering the f acility. Provided, that:
ettetricity, either directly or indirectly, initial license.
(1) Dia insurance must have a through rates estab!!shed by the entity (2) Except for electric utility minimum coverage limit no less than the l
itsed or by a separate regulatory applicants for construction permits and combined total of(i) that offered by j
suthority. Investor owned utilities, operating licenses, each application for either American Nuclear Insurers (AN1) including generation or distribution a construction permit or an operating and Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance subsidianes, public utility districts, license submitted by a newly-formed pool (MAERp) jointly or Nuclear Mutual rr.unicipahties. rural electric entity organized for the primary purpose Limited (NML): plus (ii) that offered by
Teder:I Rep 8_
- 17. N2. 82 / Wednesday. March 31 seat / Rules and Regulations 13755 Nucleat Electric Insurance 1.imited Anancial protection it maintains and the 12.In Appendia M to Part 30.
(NEIL). the Edison Electric Institute sources of this insurance ce protection.
4.(b)la revised to road as (eel]. ANI and MAERP joint!y, or NMI.
- 10. In 4 50.57, paragraph (a)(4)is as eacesa property insurance; revised to read as follows:
Appenas h6--Sesodesemedan of Design.
(2) The licensee shall, within ninety hansdesame of Nucinar power Besammt 08887 WW Camsenmales sad Operadam of Musiner heer (90) days of any increases in policy limits for primary oe excess coverage (a) * *.
Esasses h8asufasmsed pneusse to g l that it has obtained pursuant to this (4)The applicant is techalemlly and l l I l paragraph, take reasonable steps to Anandally quali$ed to engage in the obtein these increases; and activities authorised by the ope sting h,,M informanos submined (3) When a licensee is prohibited from license in accordance with the y,,seest to Iuf) shall be duested at a
{ l purchasing on. site property damage regulations in this chapter. However, no desseseoson of the Anancialquahncenons 1
insurance because of state or locallaw, Anding of Anancial qualiacations la of the appbcant for the manufactunas license the licensee shall purchase the specific necessary for an electric utility to eeny out the manufactunne acevny for amount of such insurance found by the applicant for an operating license for a e the hoenaeis W t.
NRC to be reasonably avallable to that production or utilization facility of the licensee, or to obtain an equivalent type described in 150.21(b) or $ 50.22.
gg amount of protection; end For N Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
+
=
(4) The licensee shall report on Aprill mg Samuel).m of each year to the NRC as to the present lesels of this insurance or
- 11. Part 50 is amended by removing tory of* Commission.
Appendix C.
P" D'" "'*H' * " * *8 '"I l
amass onesresme w
UNITED STATES OF # ERICA NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATLMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SOU111 CAROLINA ELECIRIC & GAS
)
COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-395
)
(Virgil C. Sunmer Nuclear Station,
)
thit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTI0tl TO DISMISS CONTENTION 2" dated April 7,1982 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by special messenger, or as indicated by a triple asterisk by Express mail, this 7th day of April,1982:
14ierbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board S. C. Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canutission P. O. Box 11549 Washington, DC 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Dr. Frank F. Hooper
- Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.
Administrative Judge Debevoise & Liberman School of Natural Resources 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
University of Michigan Washington, DC 20036 Ann lu-bor, Michigan 48109 Randolph R. Mahan, Esq.
VHr. Gustave A. Linenberger S. C. Electric & Gas Company Administrative Judge P. O. Box 764 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Columbia, SC 29218 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel George Fischer, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaission Vice President and General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 South Carolina Electric and Gas Company P. O. Box 764
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission
- Brett Allen Bursey Washington, DC 20555 Route 1, Box 93-C Little Mountain, South Carolina 29076 l
I*
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Reguli.;ory Comission Usshington, DC 20555 i
LW Steven C. Goldberg u Counsel for NRC Staff i
i i
n
- _,