ML20023C028
| ML20023C028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1983 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP., TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| ALAB-721, NUDOCS 8305090499 | |
| Download: ML20023C028 (7) | |
Text
stfWE0 MAY 061983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine MPUT
)
In the Matter of
)
,,3 p ; _5 p 5:27 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor
)
Plant)
)
)
ORDER On February 28, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision ("PID") authorizing the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization ("LWA") for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor
("CRBR").
By Order of March 28, 1983, the Ccmmission decided to conduct the effectiveness review of that decision without prior involvement by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board"). Accord-ingly, the Commission has reviewed the PID and considered as comments, bearing on effectiveness, the motion for stay filed before the Appeal Board by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Sierra Club and the answers thereto by the applican'ts and the NRC staff. On April 8, 1983, the Appeal Board denied that motion for stay.
ALAB-721.
The Commission agrees'with that Appeal Board decision and based on its own 1
review finds that there is no reason to stay the effectiveness of the 4
PID.
8305090499 830505 PDR ADOCK 05000537 0
PDR oR
2 Comnissioner Gilinsky abstains from this decision.
The views of Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Ahearne and Gilinsky follow.
It is so ORDERED.
For e
ammission Rrc i
- ( Q' :
I u
nk o
j NJOHN C. H0fLE
+J
,9
/ActingSecretary
-l !
g L
~
67 of the Commission h
%g %* *V 9 Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 5th day of May, 1983
s z
I s
1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0 The separate views of Commissioner Gilinsky identify two points as " germane to the overall conduct of this l
proceeding."
The first point concerns the NRC acceptance criteria for the CRBRP and the second point addresses the role of the NRC staff in the CRBRP licensing proceeding.
With regard to the first point, I do not believe that the Commission is in the dark about how the criteria are set or who approves them.
The NRC staff briefed the Commission on j
the subject on December 9, 1981.
More recently, the staff 4'
submitted an information paper to the Commission (SECY-83 47) on the development of Principal Design Criteria for CRBRP, the link between the General Design Criteria of Appendix A to Part 50 and the specific criteria used to judge the acceptability of the CRBRP design.
We also received an ACRS report on April 19, 1983.
Furthermore, regarding Commissioner Gilinsky's statement that the criteria were defined in part through negotiation with the CRBRP applicar.t, the concern regarding NRC. staff interaction with DOE was raised at the December 1981 briefing.
The staff described an approach at the briefing that is consistent with NRC's approach for other unique projects.
In m to the concern,y opinion, the staff exhibited sensitivity justified its technical need to rely on the special expertise of DOE's national labs, and recognized the need to identify DOE people who are not involved in the CRBRP design.
As to the second point--the role of the NRC staff--the Commission's regulatory reform agenda includes the subject of modifying the staff's role in specific licensing actions.
Pending before the Commission is a proposal that would remove the staff as a party under defined circum-stances.
However, it is argued that NRC adjudicatory boards rely heavily on the staff under the present system; concern has been expressed about a change in the staff's status.
Thus, the issue is not solely one of public credibility.
The Commission must and plans to address all of the implications of a change in the staff's role.
O
o COMMISSIONER AHEARNE'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS The basis.for today's decision includes two actions with which I have disagreed:
(1) The March 28, 1983 order in which the Commission concluded that the Appeal Board should not be involved in the immediate effectiveness review.
This was in spite of the regulation establishing the immediate effectiveness review process specifically including LWA's.
I dissented.
(2) The granting of a 50.12 exemption. The comments reviewed by the Commission in support of the PID relied on the Commission's 50.12 decisions, in particular as proof that the public interest requires expeditious completion of the CRBR. The Appeal Board (in ALAB-721) also relied on those decisions.
I dissented.
Consequently, for me today's decision is flawed.
Nevertheless, given the Commission did exclude the Appeal Board, and did authorize the 50.12 exemption, then I agree that there is then no reason to stay the effectiveness of the PID. Consequently, I. agree with the result but do not join the. Commission on the basis.
(It should be noted that the decisions today have no effect, because the applicants have decided not to request an LWA-2. The 50.12 exemption permits the applicants to continue work without an LWA-1.)
-r.
=
... o 4/25/83 SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY REVIEW OF CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR LWA-1 DECISION The decision to authorize the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization 1 will have no effect on the activities which DOE is permitted to undertake at.the reactor site.
All the work which an LWA-1 would allow is already permitted under the exemption granted by the Commission on August 17, 1982.1 The Commission is going beyond the determinations it made in granting the exemption in one respect.
The Commission is finding, in effect, that " core disruptive accidents", ones which involve melting of fuel, do not have to be considered in the licensing process at this stage.
It is unclear whether the Clinch River site would be approved if such accidents did have to be considered.
The difficulty with the Commission's finding is that the t
l issue of whether core disruptive accidents need to be considered in designing the plant has not been fully litigated in the hearing.
While the Board thinks it does i
1 I voted against DOE's request for an exemption when it was first presented to the Commission (CLI-82-4, l
March 16, 1982).
I was not present when the Commission reconsidered this request (CLI-82-8, May 18, 1982 and CLI-82-23, August 17, 1982) but would have voted against the exemption had I been present; this would not have affected the outcome.
not need to face the issue at this stage, it will only ven'ture that no one has shown that core disruptive accidents cannot be excluded from the design basis.
But it also thinks that it will be very hard to show that such accidents can be excluded from the design basis:
The Board is not persuaded by the evidence of record to date -- nor at this juncture do we need to so find --
that the CRBR will be built and operated in a manner that precludes the necessity for considering CDAs within the design basis.
It is our opinion, consistent with the preceding discussion, that Applicants, Staff and Intervenors have identified no threshold matters that would prevent attaining such an objective.
However, we foresee a heavy burden upon these parties at the construction permit phase of evidentiary hearings to provide sufficiegt evidence to permit a resolution of this question.
The Commission has rejected my proposal that it schedule a l
brief oral argument to clarify how core disruptive accidents should be treated'at this stage.
Without such further discussion there is no basis for finding that these accidents do not need to be considered now.
As a final matter, I would like to touch on two points which are not directly relevant to the LWA-1 decision but which are germane to the overall conduct of this proceeding.
First, in view of the fact that the NRC staff is In the Matter of United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
NRC Licensing Board decision March 2, 1983, p.
22.
~
~,
-,,y.
y
.e.,_
simultaneously reviewing the CRBR application and defining
-- in part through negotiation with the applicant -- the criteria under which the application will be reviewed, I am troubled that no one at the Commission level seems to have any idea of how this process is working or even of who on the NRC staff approves the criteria.
Second, I am disturbed once again to see the NRC staff participating as a full party in a licensing proceeding battling arm-in-arm with the applicant against the intervenors.
This involves the staff in a role which is fundamentally inconsistent -- both in terms of appearance and of substance ---with its role as an independent reviewer of the application.
The difficulty is accentuated in this case by the fact that the CRBR project staff is simultaneously setting criteria and evaluating whether they are met.
If the public is to have confidence in the outcome of this process, the NRC staff should withdraw as a party advocating a particular outcome in this case.
1 f
..