ML19250D105
| ML19250D105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, North Anna, Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1981 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-104 NUDOCS 8103050688 | |
| Download: ML19250D105 (6) | |
Text
%%d f
V~
$Y e
e Di s tri bu ti on Central Files RSB R/F EAlicitra MEMORANDUM FOR:
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Acting Director Planning and Program Analysis Staf f Office of Nuclear Reactor Degulation FROM:
E. A. Licitra Resource and Scheduling Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staff, NRR
SUBJECT:
EFFECTS OF THE HEARING PROCESS ON LICENSING SCHEJULES Per your request, I have made a review of the subject matter and my findings are presented below.
Section 2.104 of 10 CFR Part 2 states that a notice of hearing shall be published at least 15 days before the start of hearing (30 days for cps).
An application is considered ready for hearing after t*e 5 supplement is published (for the safety phase which is usually controlling). The current Sevill schedules assume 1-2 months between supplement i s s ua nc e and start of hearing.
In the past two years, only one (Diablo Canyon for the seismic review phase) of three OL applications has completed this phase within two months (see Enclosure 1).
As would be expected, there is no guidance in the regulations regarding how much time to assume for the duration of a hearing. The current Bevill schedules assume 2-4 months to complete a hearing (after start). In the past two years, two (Diablo Canyon for the seismic review phase and McGuire) of three OL applications have completed this phase within four months (see ).
Following completion r# the hearing, proposed findings by the staff (last input from parties) are due within 40 days (Section 2.754 of 10 CFR Par +.
- 2) and the Board Initial Decision is due 35 days thereafter (Section VI.(d). of Appendix A to CR Nrt 2), representing a total span of about 21/2 months. The current Bevill schedules assume 2-3 months between the end of hearing and the issuance of an Initial Decision. In the cast two years, none of three OL applications has had a Initial Decision issued within three months of the end of hearing (see Enclosure 1).
Based on the above, we are not allowing, enough time for the hearing process in the current Bevill schedules. Diablo Canyon's total span (the shortest c
of the three Ols) from supplement issuance to Initial Decision (for the Q,
seismic review phase) is about 101/2 months as compared to the maximum of 9
,\\ ' '
months assumed in the Bev111 schedules.
It apoears that at least an additional
- d' two months, and probably more, should be added to the 9evill schedules (including the remainder of % Diablo Canyon hearing process) to account for a longer hearing process, e
^'
. *'.5 hosa*5g 810 sono m emc:.u a z os: :.-
% H %3.;&kyY Q:Qf p
6P'"
f
$7 a
Hugh L. Thompson
-2 Following the TMI-2 accident, the Commission suspended the immediate ef fectiveness rule #or Initial Decisions and defined a revised role for the Licensing and A] peal Boards and for the Commission during this suspension.
( Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2). Enclosure 2 presents my understanding of what Appendix B states regarding those roles.
As indicatud in Enclosure 2, the Licensing Board is required to identify, with its Initial Decisio-issues which (1) could affect whether a license should become effective be. ore completion of full appellate review ( Appeal Board Final Decision and Commission review) or (2) require prompt Commission policy guidance.
This additional effort may add to the time the Licensing Baard takes to issue an Initial Decision. My intuitive feeling is that the additional time will be less than a month.
After the 'nitial Decision is issued, the Appeal Board has 60 days to decide whethar a license should become effective before completion of full appellate review.
Although not specifically addressed in Appendix 3 to 10 CFR Part 2, the implication is that apnellate review by the Appeal Board does not start until after it decides whether the license sh:uld become e#fective before completion of appellate review.
Apoendix B provides the Commission the option of allowing the Appeal Board more time if the Roard cannot decide the stay questions within 60 days. For schedule planning purposes, Powever, we should assume two months #or the Appeal Board review of the stay questions.
Following receipt of the Appeal Board decision on the stay questions, the Commission will seek to issue its own decision within 20 days. Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 gives the Comission the option of taking more time if it cannot decide within 20 days. For schedule planning purposes, we should assume at least a month for a Commission decision.
Therefore, assuming a favorable decision by the Commission, the above spans for Appeal Board and Camnission review of the stay questions would result in a license being issued about three months after issuance of the Initial Decision.
In comparison, the current Bevill schedules assume 2-3 months for this process.
f
+
..o
.- m, 9
l
% 4 Na v f )
l Ja p
C
"'-*?
C (( } C h,
- _ R E.; C R J C O P Y
Q1QD
- mg h
" "* W 4 g '
.a Hugh L. Thompson One final point; if the decision is made to stay the issuance of a license until the full appellate review is completed, this will probably add several more months to the schedule before a license can issue.
In the case c' Diablo Canyon, OELD recently estimated this additional time to be a min mum of 4-6 months, depending on wtwtnar the Commission decides to revies the Final Decision.
E. A. Licitra Resource and Scheduling Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staf f, NRR
Enclosures:
(1) Actual Spans for the Hearing Process for Near Term OLs (2) Role of Boards and Commission During Suspension of Immediate Effectiveness Rule cc:
H. Denton E. Case D. Eisenhut R. Tedesco J. Roe i
~
.. a NRR/-95
' m *-4EAL g g ;pvi
_L
.L j
i
- < O 01/4 / /81 '
l
- ~._. -
a: "
C FFICI AL fi E CO R C C C F'/
c earing Process a tual Scans for the w for Near Term OLs Suopi to Start to Finish to Start Finisn Decision Total
- Diablo Canyon 21/2 weeks 2 1/2 no 7 1/2 mo 10 1/2 mo
- McGui re 3 mo I week 7 1/2 mo 11 mo
- No rt h An na 21/2 mo 6 mo 6 ma l' 1/2 mo Data for Diablo Canyon is based :n the seisni: review chase ; starting witn Sa:clenent No. S) and excludes the current effort on litigat ng TV:
el ate:
i issues.
Data # - 'ocluire is based :n tne :eriod ; rice to t e 3:ard -e :eni g tne hearing On the issue of rydrogen : ntrol.
Data for North Anna assumes Sucolement 'io. 3 (which was the ost recent cne issued prior to the start of the safety nearing) is the starting point for the spans.
r
ENCLOSURE 2 Role of Boards and Conmission During Suspension of immediate Ef f ectiveness Rule A.
Licensing Board Role 1.
Issue Initial Decision as before.
2.
In addition, the Licensing Baord should (a) analyze the evidence on those.... issues which... present serious, close questions and which.... may be crucial to whether a license should beccne effective before full appell ate review i s completed..
(b) identifv any aspects of the case which... present issues on which pronpt Connission policy guidance is called for.
The Licensing Board may request assistance from the parties on these matters but they are not subject to discovery, examination, or cross-examination.
B.
Acceal Board Role 1.
Within 60 days (which allows time for service by mail and to hold any required oral arguments), the Appeal Board (a) shall decide any stay motion (one that seeks to defer the effectiveness of an Initial Decision beyond the period necessary for Appeal Board and Commission action described in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2).
(b) on its own motion, if no stay motion is filed, shall decide whether a stay is warrented.
(c) will give particular attention to whether issuance of the license or re-mit prior to #ull r"' ni st-at ive revi ew ~3y create novel...i ss ues or prejudice review of :ignificant...
issues.
. (d) will i nf orm the Commi ssi on...[of any] i ssues o n wh ich ;r y,;t...
policy guidance...would advance thc Board's apcellate review (Final Decision).
The Apceal Board shall not decide that a stay is warranted without giving affected parties an opportunity to be heard.
2.
If the Apoeal Board cannot issue a decision on the stay puestions within 50 days, it should explain to the Cenmission the cause of the delay.
Tne Commission shall then either allow the Appeal Board more time or take other action (e.g., take the matter over itsel f).
The running o' the 60 day period does not make the Initial Deci sion i-medi ately e#fect ' ve.
3.
Unless otherwi se ordered by the Commission, the Ap;eal Board will tnen conduct its normal appellate review (Final Cecision).
C.
Commission Role 1.
The Commission will seek to issue a decision on the stay questions within 20 days of receipt of the Appeal Board decision.
2.
If it cannot decide within 20 days, it will state the reason and give the time when a decision is expected.
The Initial Decision will be considered stayed pending the Commission's decision.
3.
Af ter a decision on the stay questions, the Commission may give the Appeal Board instructions on its appellate review of the case (for issuing a Final Decision).
,