[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58690-58694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28679]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58690]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 140
RIN 3150-AF79
Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown
Nuclear Power Reactors
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations to allow nuclear reactor licensees to reduce onsite and
offsite liability coverage during permanent shutdown of the reactors if
they meet specified reactor configurations. This proposed amendment
would reduce the level of insurance coverage commensurate with the risk
reduction after the appropriate spent fuel cooling period following
permanent shutdown of the reactor.
DATES: The comment period expires January 13, 1998. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or addressed to the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking
web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site
provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if
your web browser supports that function. For information about the
interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-
6215; e-mail [email protected]
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments
received and the environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street
NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents also may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking
website established by NRC for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Mencinsky, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-6206, e-mail [email protected]; Stephen
Lewis, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-1684, e-
mail [email protected]; Ira Dinitz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
telephone: (301) 415-1289, e-mail IPD1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The current regulations governing insurance coverage for nuclear
power reactors are contained in 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11.
These regulations do not take into consideration the reduced risk
associated with permanently shutdown plants. The exemption process
allows reduced insurance coverage for these plants.
Consideration of whether financial protection coverage should be
reduced for permanently shutdown plants must take into account the
preservation of the solvency of the organization responsible for
maintaining and decommissioning these facilities in the unlikely event
of a nuclear incident. In addition, consideration would be given to
timely payment for valid damage claims by members of the public and
minimization of the likelihood that Federal Government indemnity would
be exercised for satisfaction of claims for damages.
The regulations in 10 CFR 140.11 require that the licensees of
facilities designed to produce substantial amounts of electricity, a
rated capacity of 100,000 kWe or more, must have and maintain a primary
insurance coverage of $200 million from private sources to protect
against offsite liability. In addition, licensees must maintain
secondary financial protection in the form of private liability
insurance available under an industry retrospective rating plan. The
current maximum obligation for secondary financial protection for a
licensee in this plan is $75.5 million with respect to any nuclear
incident. Thus, the total financial protection for offsite liability
for any incident would be the primary layer of $200 million, plus the
secondary layer of $75.5 million multiplied by the number of licensed
power reactors with a rated capacity of 100,000 kWe or higher.
Under 10 CFR 50.54(w), power reactor licensees must obtain
insurance coverage from private sources to provide protection against
onsite damage in the event of an accident. These monies would allow the
licensee to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and reactor station
site in the event of an accident. The minimum amount of insurance
coverage is the lesser of $1.06 billion or the maximum amount of
insurance generally available from private sources.
This proposed rule is part of the NRC effort to eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens for power reactor facilities that are
permanently shutdown and in the process of decommissioning. This would
complement other amendments for decommissioning, such as the final rule
that was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 39278) on July 29,
1996, which clarified the procedures leading to permanent shutdown and,
eventually, to the termination of an operating license for nuclear
power reactors.
This proposed rule would also address a petition for rulemaking
(PRM-50-57) submitted by the North Carolina Public Staff Utilities
Commission. The petition requested reduction or, preferably,
elimination of the $1.06 billion of insurance for onsite reactor
stabilization and accident decontamination that is required by 10 CFR
50.54(w) when all nuclear fuel has been removed from the site. The
petitioner also requested that the offsite primary and secondary
liability coverages required under 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) be reduced or,
preferably, eliminated for shutdown reactors when no nuclear fuel is on
the reactor site.
The proposed rule does not address the financial protection
requirements for
[[Page 58691]]
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs). This subject
will be addressed after efforts dealing with technical and licensing
issues for ISFSIs are resolved in areas of safeguards requirements,
emergency planning, and potential fuel storage handling activities.
Discussion
Several different configurations for permanently shutdown reactors
are being established that encompass anticipated spent fuel
characteristics and storage modes during the period between permanent
shutdown and termination of the license. They are as follows:
Reactor Configuration 1: the reactor is defueled, permanently
shutdown, and spent fuel in the spent fuel pool is susceptible to a
zircaloy cladding fire if the spent fuel pool is drained accidentally.
This configuration encompasses the period from immediately after the
core is offloaded to just before the decay heat of the hottest
assemblies is low enough that no rapid zircaloy oxidation will take
place, and the fuel cladding will remain intact with no gap release if
water in the spent fuel pool is lost.
Reactor Configuration 2: The reactor is defueled, permanently
shutdown, and spent fuel is in the spent fuel pool but is not
susceptible to a zircaloy cladding fire or gap release caused by an
incipient fuel cladding failure in the event the spent fuel pool is
drained accidentally. In this configuration, the spent fuel can be
stored long-term in the spent fuel pool without the possibility of
initiating a zircaloy fire or significant fuel cladding failure. In
addition, the site may contain a radioactive inventory of liquid
radwaste, activated reactor components, and contaminated structural
materials. The radioactive inventory during this configuration may
change depending on the licensee's proposed shutdown activities and
schedule.
Reactor Configuration 3: The reactor is permanently shutdown and no
spent fuel is in the reactor or the spent fuel pool. All spent fuel has
been removed to an offsite or onsite dry storage independent spent fuel
storage installation (ISFSI) or to a DOE high-level repository. The
remaining radioactive inventory depends on the decommissioning status
and may include liquid radwaste, activated reactor components, and
contaminated structural materials.
Reactor Configuration 4: Same as reactor configuration 3, except
the reactor site has no significant mobile sources of radioactivity
such as contaminated liquids (less than 1000 gallons).
There are potential onsite and offsite radiological consequences
that could be associated with the onsite storage of the spent fuel in
the spent fuel pool for some time after permanent shutdown. In Reactor
Configuration 1, in the event of a complete loss of spent fuel pool
coolant inventory such as from a beyond-design-basis earthquake
scenario, there is a potential for overheating the fuel by decay heat.
This sequence could result in a zircaloy cladding fire that may have
significant onsite and offsite consequences.
To prevent fuel rod cladding failure leading to a zircaloy-cladding
fire if all spent fuel pool water is lost, the rod cladding temperature
must not exceed 565 deg.C. The rod cladding temperature is an important
factor that must be considered in modifying the financial protection
requirements for permanently shutdown reactors.
In Reactor Configuration 2, the spent fuel has decay heat
sufficiently low that the cladding will remain intact even if all spent
fuel pool water is lost. However, if there are significant sources of
radioactive material stored onsite, it would be appropriate to maintain
an adequate level of onsite insurance coverage. Although the offsite
consequences are negligible in the Reactor Configuration 2 , because
the spent fuel pool is operational and an inventory of radioactive
materials exists onsite, an appropriate level of offsite financial
protection is required to account for the potential for significant
judgments or settlements from litigation that might be instituted and
to protect the Federal government from indemnity claims.
In Reactor Configuration 3, when spent fuel is no longer stored in
the spent fuel pool, the potential for a radiological incident is
primarily in mobile sources of radioactivity onsite at permanently
shutdown nuclear reactors. The offsite cleanup costs were found to be
negligible for Reactor Configuration 3, but as was noted in Reactor
Configuration 2, an appropriate level of offsite financial protection
is still required to account for the potential for significant
judgments or settlements from litigation that might be instituted and
also to protect the Federal government from indemnity claims. Because
the level of risk has decreased vis-a-vis the Reactor Configuration 2
by having no spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, the level of offsite
financial protection required is being reduced by taking into account
only the mobile radioactive inventory onsite.
In the Reactor Configuration 4, with no significant amount of
mobile sources of radioactivity such as contaminated liquids onsite,
there is no need to maintain the same level of insurance coverage for
onsite or offsite financial protection as in Reactor Configuration 3.
The basis for the transition from Reactor Configuration 3 to Reactor
Configuration 4 is the point at which there is less than 1000 gallons
of liquid radwaste stored onsite. A limiting value of 1000 gallons has
been considered because it constitutes approximately a factor of 500
reduction in volume from the large volume tank used as the basis for
the Reactor Configuration 3 limiting event.
In Reactor Configuration 4, if the licensee has cleaned the site to
unrestricted release levels and is awaiting a confirmatory survey for
terminating the license, the necessary level of onsite insurance
coverage at this stage would be less than when 1000 gallons of liquid
radwaste were stored onsite. Under these circumstances, the onsite
coverage could be further reduced or eliminated to account for
negligible onsite consequences. However, for offsite financial
protection requirements, although the offsite consequences are
negligible, some level of public liability financial protection must be
maintained as long as there remains in effect a nuclear reactor license
issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 under the authority of Section 103 or
104 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134). See Section 170a
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2210a). Section 170 is commonly referred to as
the ``Price-Anderson Act.''
Proposed Regulatory Action
The proposed amendments would adjust the onsite insurance coverage
requirements and the offsite financial protection requirements for
permanently shutdown reactors based on limiting the spent fuel cladding
temperatures for accidents involving loss of spent fuel pool water and
the amount of onsite radioactive inventory such as liquid radwaste in
post shutdown modes. The insurance amounts are based on the estimated
cost of recovery from limiting hypothetical events for specific reactor
configurations.
The proposed amendments would also address ``rated capacity'' in 10
CFR 140.11 as used in Section 170a of the Atomic Energy Act to indicate
that a permanently shutdown nuclear reactor has a ``rated capacity'' of
zero.
The proposed financial protection requirements are as follows.
Reactor Configuration 1--Fuel in spent fuel pool not sufficiently
cool.
[[Page 58692]]
--The requirements for onsite insurance coverage and offsite financial
protection remain as presently specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR
140.11, respectively.
Reactor Configuration 2--Fuel could tolerate a complete loss of
water in the spent fuel pool.
--The onsite insurance coverage requirements is $50 million. The amount
of $50 million is to recover from a postulated accident in the spent
fuel pool.
--The offsite financial protection requirement is $100 million, based
on the potential for significant judgments or settlements resulting
from litigation despite negligible offsite consequences.
Reactor Configuration 3--No fuel in spent fuel pool, risk dependent
on radioactive inventory at plant site in decommissioning status.
--The onsite insurance coverage requirement is $50 million. The amount
of $50 million is the estimated amount needed to recover from a
postulated onsite event of a rupture of a large slightly contaminated
liquid storage tank.
--The offsite financial protection requirement is $50 million, based on
the potential for significant judgments or settlements resulting from
litigation that might still be instituted despite negligible offsite
consequences; however the liability risk is considered less than in
Reactor Configuration 2.
Reactor Configuration 4--No fuel in the spent fuel pool and no
significant source of mobile radioactive material.
--The onsite insurance coverage requirements is either $25 million or
is eliminated. The amount of $25 million is based on the possibility of
having to clean up onsite contamination from an accidental rupture of a
less-than-1000-gallon contaminated liquid storage tank during shutdown
activities. Elimination of onsite insurance coverage would be warranted
when a licensee is awaiting a confirmatory survey for license
termination.
--The offsite financial protection requirement is $25 million, based on
the potential for claims arising from asserted offsite consequences.
This would minimize the possibility that Federal Government
indemnification would be required. As noted above, the Atomic Energy
Act does not allow a 10 CFR part 50 licensee to drop this coverage
entirely, only to reduce it.
Discussion
This proposed rule would allow power reactor licensees to reduce
their onsite insurance coverage and offsite financial protection
requirements during permanent shutdown without resorting to the
exemption process. The level of financial protection would be
determined for permanently shutdown reactors at a level that coincides
with their actual configuration stage.
During Reactor Configuration 1, licensees would be required to
maintain onsite insurance coverage and offsite financial protection at
the levels currently required by 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11,
respectively. This is because the radiological consequences during this
stage of permanent shutdown approximate the magnitude of a severe core
damage accident.
After allowing the spent fuel to cool down to the point that the
maximum spent fuel cladding temperature will not exceed 565 deg.C in
the event of a loss of water in the spent fuel pool (Reactor
Configuration 2), power reactor licensees would be allowed under 10 CFR
50.54(w) to reduce their onsite insurance coverage from $1.06 billion
to $50 million. The reason for this reduction in insurance coverage is
that the rapid clad oxidation event of Reactor Configuration 1 is not
possible. Insurance coverage requirements for Reactor Configuration 2
are based on the fact that there is a possibility for a fuel handling
accident in the spent fuel pool, and significant amounts of mobile
radioactive sources remain onsite that have a potential for release
during this period. The $50 million coverage would be adequate to clean
up the site in the event of a fuel handling accident, an accidental
release of cooling water from the spent fuel pool, or a rupture of a
large slightly contaminated liquid storage tank.
The proposed insurance coverage requirement for Reactor
Configuration 2 does not take into account the reduction in radioactive
decay of the spent fuel assemblies with the passage of time during that
period. The insurance coverage requirements are based on the
conservative assumption of a fuel handling accident shortly after the
transition to Reactor Configuration 2. Adjusting insurance requirements
during Reactor Configuration 2 based on the decay level of the spent
fuel would be burdensome from a regulatory standpoint, as opposed to
selecting a bounding figure to encompass any unexpected events
concerning the spent fuel pool.
In Reactor Configuration 2, the offsite financial protection
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 140.11 would be reduced from $200
million to $100 million for the primary liability coverage, and the
licensee would be allowed to withdraw from the secondary liability
coverage under Price-Anderson.
In Reactor Configuration 3, when all the spent fuel has been
removed to an onsite or offsite dry storage ISFSI or to a DOE high-
level repository and the onsite radioactive inventory is greater than
1000 gallons, the onsite insurance coverage requirements would be $50
million under the proposed 10 CFR 50.54(w). This amount is based on the
fact that there are still mobile radioactive sources onsite that have
the potential to contaminate the site. The maximum cleanup costs
associated with Reactor Configuration 3 are estimated at approximately
$50 million. The conservative limiting event is the rupture of a large
contaminated liquid storage tank that causes soil contamination and the
potential to contaminate groundwater. The offsite financial protection
requirements under the proposed Section 140.11 would be reduced from
$100 million to $50 million, and the licensee would not be required to
maintain secondary liability coverage under the Price-Anderson Act for
Reactor Configuration 3. With no spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, the
risks of offsite contamination have been reduced considerably for this
configuration.
In Reactor Configuration 4, there are no significant mobile sources
of radioactivity, such as liquid contaminants, onsite. Thus, the
potential for onsite and offsite radiological impacts is limited. In
this situation, onsite insurance coverage requirements either would be
$25 million or would be completely eliminated under the proposed 10 CFR
50.54(w). The amount in each case would be based on information
provided by the licensee and evaluated by the staff for the particular
circumstances of the shutdown reactor. The $25 million onsite insurance
coverage would be required if liquid radwaste remained stored onsite,
usually 1,000 gallons or less of radwaste, that may be susceptible to
an accidental spill and the consequent need for cleanup of the
contaminated site. Elimination of required onsite insurance coverage
would be based on the licensee's submittal of its terminal radiation
survey to the NRC stating that the site has been cleaned to
unrestricted release levels and is awaiting a confirmatory survey for
termination of the license. In either case, the onsite and offsite
consequences would be negligible.
[[Page 58693]]
In Reactor Configuration 4, the required offsite financial
protection would be reduced to $25 million to account for the
continuing potential for claims based on asserted offsite consequences.
A minimum of $25 million in coverage would minimize the possibility
that Federal Government indemnification would be required and would be
consistent with the requirements of Section 170 of the Atomic Energy
Act that power reactor licensees maintain some level of public
liability financial protection. The licensee would not be required to
maintain secondary liability coverage under Price-Anderson for Reactor
Configuration 4.
In addition, ``rated capacity'' would be addressed in 10 CFR part
140 to indicate that permanently shutdown nuclear power plants have
``zero'' rated capacity. The effect of this amendment would be to allow
the NRC to permit reduction of the primary liability coverage and
elimination of the requirement for participation in the secondary
liability coverage for nuclear power plants that had made the
certifications under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, for
reasons stated above, the NRC does not propose to permit this reduction
and withdrawal until a reactor has entered the Reactor Configuration 2.
At that point the NRC proposes that the reactor no longer be subject to
the requirements to maintain primary financial protection in the
``maximum amount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms
from private sources'' or to participate in the secondary financial
protection public liability system under Section 170 of the Atomic
Energy Act. The Commission has already approved, in response to site-
specific requests, these adjustments in the primary and secondary
public liability insurance regime, and this clarification in part 140,
as requested by the Commission, places into the Commission's
regulations a statement that a permanently shutdown nuclear power plant
is no longer considered to have any ``rated capacity.''
The petition for rulemaking submitted by the North Carolina Public
Staff Utilities Commission would be substantially granted in that the
insurance requirements would be significantly reduced, as requested.
However, the petition could not be fully granted because of the Price-
Anderson statutory provisions that do not allow licensees who continue
to hold 10 CFR part 50 licenses to drop the offsite public liability
coverage entirely.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
required. The proposed rule change would allow licensees to seek
reductions in onsite and offsite insurance coverage following permanent
shutdown if they meet specified reactor configurations because of the
reduced risk associated with permanently shutdown reactors. The
proposed rule change would require no changes in hardware, procedures,
organization, or operation of nuclear power reactors. It would not
affect the safety requirements for nuclear power reactors because of
the significantly reduced risks to the public health and safety in
Reactor Configurations 2, 3, and 4 and it would not affect the
likelihood, magnitude, or consequences of accidents at the permanently
shutdown nuclear power reactors. Although the proposed rule change
would reduce the level of financial protection available to pay for
environmental or other consequences that may result from accidents at
permanently shutdown nuclear power reactors, the Commission considers
the reduced required insurance and financial protection coverage to be
fully adequate and commensurate with the reduced consequences of
potential accidents at permanently shutdown nuclear reactors and that
the environment will not be negatively affected. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined that the proposed rulemaking would have no
significant impacts on the quality of the environment.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
on which this determination is based are available for inspection at
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the
finding of no significant impact are available from George Mencinsky,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6206.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-
0039.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this
proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of
the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is
available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft analysis
may be obtained from George Mencinsky, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-6206. The Commission requests public comment
on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be
submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule only affects NRC power reactor licensees,
which are not ``small entities.''
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule because the backfit rule is limited in
scope to construction and operation of nuclear reactors. This rule
would only apply to reactors that have permanently ceased operations.
Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments
do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in
10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting
criteria,
[[Page 58694]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 140
Criminal penalties, Extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants
and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 50 and 140.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.10 also issued under secs. 101,
185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub.
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd),
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued
under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a,
50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued
under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58,
50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42
U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184,
68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2. In Sec. 50.54(w), paragraph (5) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
* * * * *
(w) * * *
(5) For the specified reactor configurations during permanent
shutdown, licensees shall maintain the following insurance requirements
notwithstanding paragraph (w)(1):
(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when the reactor is defueled,
permanently shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding temperature in the
spent fuel pool is 565 deg.C or greater for a postulated loss of spent
fuel pool cooling event, the insurance coverage must be as specified in
paragraph (w)(1).
(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, and the
spent fuel cladding temperature in the spent fuel pool does not exceed
565 deg.C for a postulated loss-of-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, the
minimum insurance coverage limit for each reactor must be $50 million.
(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, no fuel is
in the spent fuel pool, and the radioactive liquid inventory onsite is
1,000 gallons or greater, the minimum insurance coverage for each
reactor must be $50 million.
(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, no fuel is
in the spent fuel pool, and the radioactive liquid inventory onsite is
less than 1,000 gallons, the minimum insurance coverage for each
reactor must be $25 million. For sites awaiting license termination, no
insurance coverage is required if the licensee has completed its
terminal radiation survey and the site is ready for the confirmatory
survey for license termination.
* * * * *
PART 140--FINANCIAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY
AGREEMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 140 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71 Stat. 576, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
2. In Sec. 140.11(a), remove ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3),
change ``.'' at end of paragraph (4) to ``; and'' and add paragraph (5)
to read as follows:
Sec. 140.11 Amounts of financial protection for certain reactors.
(a) * * *
(5) For the specified reactor configurations during permanent
shutdown of nuclear power reactors (such reactors being classified as
having zero electric power level rated capacity) that were covered
during their operation by paragraph (a)(4):
(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when the reactor is defueled,
permanently shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding temperature in the
spent fuel pool is 565 deg.C or greater for a postulated loss of spent
fuel pool cooling event, in the amount as specified in paragraph
(a)(4).
(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, and the
spent fuel cladding temperature in the spent fuel pool does not exceed
565 deg.C for a postulated loss-of-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, in
the amount of $100 million for each reactor.
(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, no fuel is
in the spent fuel pool, and the radioactive liquid inventory onsite is
1,000 gallons or greater, in the amount of $50 million for each
reactor.
(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when the reactor is defueled and
permanently shutdown, no operating reactors are on the site, no fuel is
in the spent fuel pool, and the radioactive liquid inventory onsite is
less than 1,000 gallons, in the amount of $25 million for each reactor.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of October, 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-28679 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
