ML20023C952
| ML20023C952 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/14/1983 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C953 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-2071, NUDOCS 8305180668 | |
| Download: ML20023C952 (12) | |
Text
-
u Le vi neeLiny; c/ /-c/ c,5 Data Certified: 4/13/83 Date Issued:
4/14/83 o
/YC RS c2o M /
p 9DR 66 bis 83 MINUTES OF THE MEETING 0F THE ACRS SU3 COMMITTEE ON REGULATORY POLICY AND PROCEDURES w
February 7, 1983
^Q7, %9,7 7 pq; e -
1 L -,'~
Washington, D.C.
r'
!j The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policy and Procebret met in an open
....)
meeting on February 7,1983, in Washington, D. C., in order to be briefed by representatives from the NRC Regulatory Reform Task Force, NRC Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the Ad Hoc Committee on Regulatory Reform.
There were no written or oral statements received or presented at the meeting.
The Federal Register meeting notice, the attendee list, and meeting schedule are shown in Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Marvin Gaske was the Designated Federal Employee.
The ACRS members present were: H. Lewis, Chairman; J. Ray; and F. Remick.
The NRC Staff member present to discuss the Regulatory Reform Task Force's revised legislative package was J. Tourtellotte.
Marty Malsch, Acting NRC General Counsel, represented the OGC in discussing regulatory reform items needing legislation and the effect of the impending legislation on the ACRS.
G. Charnoff, Committee Chairman, discussed the activities of the Ad Hnc Cenmittee on Regulatory Reform.
J. Tourtellotte began his presentation by outlining the four different areas of the reform bill.
These are:
(1) Section 101 pertaining to Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act and dealing with the construction permit and the e
I$
combined construction permit and operating license; (2) Section 102 pertain-g c) ing to Section 189 of the Act and dealing with hearings and judicial review; a) c)
$u)
Section 103 pertaining to Section 193 of the Act and dealing with early site o c:
N reviews; and (4) Section 104 pertaining to Section 194 of the Act and is a
$m5 Q@@
new section dealing with design approvals.
DESIGNATED ORIGIIIAL h
-] g
'N Certifje a s.
2.
J. Tourtellotte explained that Section 185 of the Act has been amended by deletion of certain requirements stating the earliest and latest completion dates of the facility for construction permits.
Another requirement that was deleted is the mandatory construction permit hearing.
Both of these items have failed to uphold their intended purpose and have contributed to either unnecessary or large expenditures of resources.
Other provisions permit issuance of a conbined construction and operating license. This is not a one-step license, but rather it is a process encouraging the applicant to precant a more complete application, thus affording the opportunity for a hearing on that more complete application.
J. Tourtellotte informed the Subconmittee that historically (around 1960-62) it was suggested that the hearing process should be to educate the public.
However, it evolved that the purpose of the hearing should he to resolve technical and legal disputes among parties.
He reiterated that the legis-lative package deals mostly with the procedural aspects of licensing, not the substantive aspects of safety.
These proceedings are not conducted for the purpose of enhancing safety, but to determine if the application pre-sented for the plant and the Staff review of it shows that the plant can be operated in a safe nanner.
The Subcommittee questioned what the terminology, thermal neutron power generation facility meant.
J. Tourtellotte pointed out that this was defined in the bill as "a utilization facility which is designed to produce electrical energy and in which core power is designed to be produced predoninately by thermal neutron fisson."
.c----
3.
J. Tourte110tte continued on to note other interesting features of Section 185.
One of these permits the Commission to rely on certification of need for power from a certifying authority, Federal, regional, or state instead of the Commission determining the need for power.
Also, there is a provision that the Commission shall not modify a final determination of an issue decided in a proceeding for the issuance of a permit or a license for a facility unless there is a substantial eviden-tiary showing.
J. Tourtellotte explained that the revised Section 189 established a hybrid hearing process which would be discretionary rather than mandatory.
The intent of the hybrid process is to give an opportunity to the public (as a party) to express concerns to have discovery and to make oral argument.
Then it would be determined if there is a genuine issue of fact in dispute.
If so, the adjudicatory process would take over.
J.
Tourtellotte stated that the new Sections 193 and 194 can be deemed companion sections since most of their provisions are the same.
Section 193 pertains to early site review and is applicable to any production or utili-zation facility. The section-by-section analysis describes the general type of parameters that should be addressed in the application.
Section 194 pertains to approval of designs for only thermal neutron power generation facilities.
These designs would not be subject to attack at a later date unless a substantial evidentiary showing were made.
These provisions were meant to encourage standardization.
I 4.
.w H. Lewis asked how much of this legislative package could be implemented without -l egisl ation.
J. Tourtellotte replied that everything could be done without legislation with the exception of deletion of earliest and latest dates of completion for CP, mandatory CP review, and perhaps deferral of fees.
J. Tourtellotte briefed the Subcommittee on the administrative schedule.
The first subject to be approached will be backfitting.
He commented that he hoped the Commission would take up the policy paper on backfitting before the rule on backfitting. The policy paper basically states that the rule on the books, 50.109, is to be enforced along procedures outlined in the CRGR charter; ED0 is to assure that this is done.
The schedule for backfitting as perceived by J. Tourtellotte could be as follows: (1) policy paper issued the end of February; (2) rules sent out for comment by April 15; and (3) new rules issued in either September or October Part 2 changes will be treated as a separate package. A tentative schedule could be that Part 2 changes would be taken up sometime in April, put out for comment mid-June, evaluated in mid-October, sent to the Commissica by flovember, and made a rule in January or February.
The third part of the parte, separation of functions, and revising the role of the package; ex staf f; would probably be taken up in July and go into effect by next February.
5.
M. Malsch addressed the concern on how the legislative package af'ects the ACRS.
There have been conforming admendments to Section 182(b) which specifies the kinds of applications the Committee must review. This section retains its original content with the addition to include within the scope of mandatory review site permits, design approvals, and combined cps and OLs.
Also, the Commission intends for the Committee to review plants prior to operation even though a combined CP/0L has been received.
4 M. Malsch pointed out two provisions of interest in Section 2 of the bill.
One states that the sole purpose of the adjudicatory hearing is the reso-l lution of factual disputes among parties. The other states that the NRC may give appropriate considerations to economic factors in its discussions.
He reiterated the changes in Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act (Section 101 of the bill).
One of these deletes the requirement of stating earliest and latest completion dates in construction permits.
This in effect would eliminate proceedings rel'ated to changes in dates.
Another change in this section is the addition of the provision for a cnmbined CP/0L.
This does not authorize operation of a plant, it actually is a means for the Commis-sion to sign off on an essentially complete or final design.
The last change in this section authorizes the NRC to delegate to the states the certification of need for power and alternative means of generating elec-trical energy.
Also, there is a restriction in this section which prohibits the Commission from modi fying earlier decisions on construction permits without an evidentiary showing.
6.
M. Malsch discussed the changes in Section 189 of the Act (Section 102 of the bill).
The provision deals with hearings and judicial review.
In effect, the requirement for holding a hearing prior to design approval is added.
As it stands now, the Commission has the authority to approve designs by rulemaking.
There have been conforming changes to bring within the scope of this section site permits; reviewing amendments, licenses, and permits; and combined CP/0Ls.
This section adds new notice requirements, in particular, design approvals and site permits.
There is a provision prohibiting or restricting relitigation of issues finally decided in prior proceedings, including staff determir.ations.
Another provision gives the Commission authorization to hold hybrid hearings, thus allowing resolution of certain disputes by a less formal prncedure. The final provision of this section authorizes the Commission to make amendments not involving signifi-cant hazards considerations effective prior to completion of requested hearings on construction permits, design approvals, and site permits.
M. fialsch explained that Section 193 of the Act (Section 103 of the bill) provides specifically for early site permits.
Under this provision the I
Commission could allow anyone to obtain a site permit.
Also, a new species i
of license would he created, "a site permit."
This removes the site permit from the construction proceeding.
Included in this section is the authori-zation for the Commission to defer fees for the application and renewal l
l application and to allocate the costs among the applicants.
Both Sections 193 and 194 restrict modifications of final determinations made by the Conmission in earlier proceedings.
l
7.
M. Malsch reiterated that Section 194 of the Act (Section 104 of the bill) provides for design approval s for standardized facilities.
This would create a new species of permit or license called a design approval.
This would be divorced from any rulemaking or construction permit proceeding.
Also, deferral of fees would be applicable.
M. Malsch discussed other portions of the bill.
There is an implementation section which directs the Commission to propose regulations within 180 days following enactment, implementing certain provisions of the bill restricting modificatioans of design (" anti-backfitting").
Other provisions attempt to define the type of NEPA review which will be conducted for design approvals and site permits..
G. Charnoff informed the Subcommittee that the Ad Hoc Committee on Regula-tory Reform issued a report in August 1982 on the 1982 draft proposed Nuclear Standardization Act and a report in December 1982 on the November version of the proposed 1983 Nuclear Licensing Reform Act. The Committee is now reviewing the administrative package and expects a critique it over the next couple of months.
Charnoff summarized some of the consensus positions of the Committee.
It favored early site reviews and determinations, issu-ance of standardized design approvals, one-step licensing, statutorily affi rning the need for and justification for stabilization of ifcensing decisions, and revision of the hearing process. _ The Committee disagreed.
with a number of the proposals in the January 1982 proposal.
It believed
6 es 8.
that this proposal should allow meaningful decisions on discrete design subsystems and site characteristics and on NEPA issues.
Also, it was against forcing decisions prematurely which the one-step licensing process could induce.
The Committee felt it was necessary to address the purpose and characteristics of the hearing process.
Lastly, it urged stabilization in the legislation without using the concept of comparative risk assessments.
The Ad Hoc Committee's December 1982 report included endorsement of early site approvals, standardized design approvals, one-step licensing and revised hearing procedures, and deferral to other federal agencies of the need-for-power issues.
Since the Committee was not up to date on the Commissioners' revisions on the legislative package, G.
Charnoff gave an overview of the Committee's philosophies on some of the issues.
The Committee believed that the draft it had seen needed more affirmative statements on the authority of the Commission to approve discrete items.
NEPA or environmental matters should have been addressed more extensively.
Backfitting should be included in this package.
Even if it is not defined, it should be stated that backfitting is a legitmimate policy decision for the agency to make.
The Committee felt that there should be more flexi-bility concerning design approvals.
Charnoff explained that the Commit-tee's view on one-step licensing included one-time review of issues, but not all of them at one time.
He believed that it is necessary to begin the
- o -
9.
hearing process long before plant completion.
The last area to be dis-cussed was the reversed hearing process.
The Committee favored discre-tionary hybrid hearings.
It asked if it is appropriate to cross-examine and to detemine the quality of staf f review under the hybrid process.
Charnoff suggested that internal checks on the quality of staff ' review would be feasible, perhaps using the ACRS. The Subcommittee recessed at 2:43 P.M. and reconvened in executive session at 3:00 P.M.
It was suggested that the Subcommittee make tentative plans to meet on March 7 prior to the Full Committee meetings on March 10,11, and 12. The Members discussed approaching the Full Committee with a draft letter to the Commis-sion on its views concerning this legislative package.
This letter will be drafted by J. Ray.
l L
._.