ML20031E261
| ML20031E261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/24/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hiler J HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110150294 | |
| Download: ML20031E261 (16) | |
Text
.
f * *U%o.
h&
UNITED STATES k
MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- c h WASHING EON, 0. C. 20559
(
SEP 2 4 1981 ff I
CHA N AN ISS/A C
- The Honorable John Hiler 4
U. 3. House of Representatives i^v.4, k, g %
- S Washington, D.C.
20515 y
N, ic j @ kc
Dear Congressman Hiler:
This responds to your letter of June 26, 1981 concerning int rim licensing of new nuclear power plants.
In addition, I am forwarding herewith Commissioner Gilinsky's reply to the quest. ion specifically addressed to him, as well as my coments both on addressing this question to Commissioner Gilinsky alone and on my view of the answer.
As a preface to answering your specific questions, the Commission muld like to make several points about the role cf public hearings in the issuance of operating licenses and about the likely effects of the interim licensing legislation on that process.
The contributions of the hearing process to the safety of operating nuclear power plants must be evaluated in tenns of the overall effect of the public bearings on licensing review for both contested and uncontested cases. The prospect of a public hearing on health, safety, and environmental issues has a potential beneficial effect on the quality of the safety reviews perfomed by the NRC staff and the plant applicant. The knowledge that cross-examina-tion and Board scrutiny are likely is itself a check on the review process.
In a number of licensing cases, the applicant has agreed to make moctifica-tions to its application as a result of issues raised by intervenors.
You have asked whether the hearing process will be compromised by the issu.
ance of an interim license. The Commission does not intend that the scope and comprehensiveness of the staff's review and participation in a hearing will be affected by the issuance of art interim license. However, some parties may well perceive the issuance of an interim license as an indication that the Corrrnission has prejudged the merits of the issues.in the pending'0perating License (OL) proceeding.
In that event, the issuance of such a license may appear to some parties to reduce the effectiveness of NRC licensing proceed-ings despite our efforts to maintain the current level of effectiveness.
Answers to your specific questions are enclosed.
Sincerely, 6
Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosures:
As stated 8110150294 810924 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
Question 1:
How many significant changes hava been made for the protec-tion of public health and safety as a resuit of the public hearing process preceding the granting of an operating" licensc?
Question 2:
What were these changes? Please be specific.
Answer The evidence that would be necessary to supply a definitive answer to these questions is not available without conductirig a careful and time consuming analysis of all contested operating license cases in the lasf 18-20 years.
A brief review of cases over the last few years does not reveal anywhere',
as a result of an inter /enor prevailing on a contested safety issue, that the plant design or operating procedures were required to be modified to a substantial extent.
However, the review was not a thorough one. Not all cases were surveyed. Also, changes voluntarily made by applicants in response to intervention would, in most cases, not be obvious from a review of the record proceeding.
Finally, in some areas intervention may have prompted or contributed to changes in standards or review practices in future cases.
This latter type of contribution would also not be apparent frcra a review of the records in individual cases.
~
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORDi' An intervenor need not " prevail" on a contested issue to have a positive effective on safety.
In a number of licensing cases, the utility applicant has agreed to make significant modifications to its application in response to issues raised by intervenors.
In addition, hindsight following Three Mile Island demonstrates the merits of a number-of issues (such as systems interaction and emergency planning) which were raised unsuccessfully by intervenors in license proceedings.
These latter cases are instances in which significant and necessary changes for the protection of the public health and safety could have been made as a result of the hearing process, but were not.
Instead, they are today being made under much more costly backfitting requirements.
In addition, the following are significant example:: of actions taken by appeal boards in operating license proceedings.
Others could certainly be prov-ided.
~
Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-343, 4-NRC 169.
The safety issue here concsrned the integrity of the tubes of the facility's steam generator.
This issue (leakage of radioactive primary coolant into the secondary system through tube leaks due to corrosion) had come up in the operating license proceeding before the Licensing Board, but had not been pursued on appeal by the intervenors.
Because of its importance to safety, the Appeal Board remanded that question to the Licensing Board for further evidentiary hearings.
Following a Licensing Board decision on the issue, the Appeal Board remained unsatisfied that all facets of the issue had been explored.
It thus conducted additional ev,identiary hearings on its own.
This led to the applicant's voluntarfly undertaking
certain improvements in the system (such as design changes in the steam generators arid installation of full flow demineralizers) and changes in secondary water quality specifications.
Although Prairie Island was the only facility before the Appeal Board, the applicability of its findings to other PWRs was specifically noted.
Virginia Electric and Power Co.
(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-578,11 NRC 189.
The safety issue here, arising out of the Appeal Board's review of a Licensing Board's decision authorizing an operating license for the facility, concerned the likelihood that turbine disks might break and strike and damage vital facility structures or components. The Appeal Board conducted evidentiary hearings on this matter, but has not yet issued its decision. Meanwhile, the manufacturer (Westinghouse) has announced it is redesigning its turbines to accommodate this problem.
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER AHEARNE Commissioner Ahearne notes that in both of the above referench cases, the plant had been licensed and was operating while the Appeal Board considered the issues since it did not find the issues. serious enough to delay effective-ness of the Licensing Board decision.
d' l
I l
t I
I l
l 1
I e
w y
=. - - -, _
,n.
,m._
.= - -
Question 3:
Would any aspect of the public safety be overlooked due to the issuance of an interim license prior to the completion of the hearing process and issuance of the..
operating license? If so, please describe.
Answer
_ The Commission does not'believe that any aspect of public safety would be overlooked due to the issuance of an interim operating license.
O 9
L' t
e O
g.
h m
h e
=
0
--w,,
-,,e-
-,r r-
,r,<
Question 4:
How nuch risk to the public safety would there be in the granting of an interim license?
Answer We all recognize that the operation of nuclear power plants is not absolutely risk-free.
The aim of the Commission's review and licensing process is to assure that the risk is acceptably small, and that adequate protection of the publ.c health and safety is thereby provided.
The granting of an interim operating license in a case where a hearing has been requested is subject to the same substantive requirements as the been requested, and there should be no difference in risk. gra SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The most significant reactor accidents to date (Fermi I, Browns Ferry, and Three Mile Island) have occurred very early in the life of the affected plant.
Consequentl particularly at full power, y, the period of interim operation, is not one i should remain unresolved.
n which significant safety issues s,
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF CHAIRMAN PALLADINO N
c, With regard to Commissioner Bradford's comments, the point is not that these accidents occurred early in the life of the plant but rather that interim licensing would have neither increased nor lessened the prob-ability of their occurrence.
b e
e G
6
'99 e
, - - - - - ~, -, -
e
,,,, - - ~ -, - -
y-
Question 5:
What kinds of risk factors will be considered in the decision to grant one?
Answer All of the nonnal staff, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and Comission review procedures will apply in granting an interim operating license, and all of the risk factors that are considered in every case will be taken into account.
4 e.
O D
o e
e O
4 r
- - - =,, - - -,
,7._,e.-..
r - -
--w--
r
S Question 6:
If interim licenses are granted, is it possible that the hearing process can be more beneficial after a period of low-power operation?
Answer The Comission does not believe that this would be likely, although it is
- possible that there might be some aspects of the low-power operation that would be of interest in the hearing.
O e
a.
[
me s
l e
um e
. e es e
-*-w
-w w
c-+
---, - +, - -
w m-m
--w
- * - ~
+a e-+
-r--+
--m-
-- - -y
-w
Question 7:
It has been implieu that the public hearing process would not be as thorough if the utility had already received sn interim license.
Is that the positica of the NRC?
Answer No. The Commission expects the hearing to go on without regard to the
- fact that an interim operating license had been issued.
However, as the Chairman indicated in his transmittal letter, some parties may perceive the issuance of an interim license as an indication that the Commission has prejudged the merits of the issues in the hear'ing.
In that event, the issuance of such a license may appear to some parties to reduce the effectiveness of NRC licensing proceedings, despite NRC's best efforts to maintain the current level of effectiveness.
?
b l
l o
e
-_y
--,,-.-w-
Question 8:
What steps will you take to ensure that the hearing process is not compromised by the issuance of an interim license,?
Answer The Commission expects that an indication of foot-dragging or delaying tactics in tha hearing by the utility, or any party, would be dealt with vigorously by the presiding Board and, if necessary, by the Commission.
If the utility was the offending party, and the Comission considered the offense serious enough, the interim license could be revoked.
Commissioner Bradford would note that the Conmission cannot cJmpel members of the public to participate actively in its proceedings.
g
.g,
(
l 9
I
w; i,
'b Question 9:
How do you envision the interim 1 acensing process working?,
Answer
. k
\\
~
The process would work as described in Sec',fon 192 of the Atomic Energy Acts, i
as amended, and with tha changes to Sectbn 192 described in H.R. 4255.,TheS Commission would consider interim opera'.ing(5 percent) as a first step, andlic and operation to some moderate power '.evel then higher levels of operation in edeceeding steps if necessary.
e s;
'.N s
(
)' Y e 2
Y s
e,,-
i e
a-
-x.
L w
g*
D +
0
=
4 e
\\
4 9
m
A.-
Question 10:
What shou 1(interim licensing legislation include?
Answer The nresent version of the NRC F( 1982/83 authorization bill, H.R. 4255, inciudes the needed elements.
The Comission does suggest one change in the present version, if that is possible, to eliminate the possibility of having to hold two hearings after the interim license is issued instead of one hearing.
As it stands, the present versio'.would seem to allow a hearing on the interim license itself under Section 192, as well as the regular operating licence hearing under Section 189a'.
Since the extra hearing makes'no tense at ail, the bill language shoubi be changed to. remove the Sectica 192 hearing on the interim license. That would leave the regular operatirg 11:erse hearing, under Section 189a., to be held as intended.
' SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD
~
Most of the significant projected licensiny delays (with the exception of Diab 1D Canyen and possibly San Onofre) that were the basis for full-power interim authorization have evaporated.
Further deferrals in licensee completion dates ' continue to eliminate delays attributable to the hearing process.
Virtually all of the remaining near-terr plants can be licensed without significant delay under the.Commissio'O's existing procedures and with the interim low-power testing authorization originally proposed by the Commission.
Because it is unnecessary, Congressional b
action going beyond the Comission's original proposal is likely to
[
be, interpreted as. a directive to emphasize ~ licensing over safety.
ADDITIO.NAL VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN PALLADINO i
I do not agree with Commissioner Bradford's separ'ite views.
His views l
are based on the issun that licensing boards can complete their hearings in 11 to 13 r
. -Experience to da ta indicates that, on the average, the hearing p.%.ess has taken much longer than that. While efforts will be made to meet the assumed schedules, there is no ass 2rance that the time requirtd for some hearings will not be longer than assumed.
Interim licensias will,make the question on hearing length a moot point and can help avoid delays in plant start-up.
I L
. believe also that this can be done without reducing protection of public health and safety.
e
't ~ %
7
_. _ ~
Question 11:
What safety and environmental reviews mast be completed before the NRC could issue an interim license under the House Commerce Committae Bill?
Answer All of them except, of course, for the reviews that take place as part of the hearing process itself.
- s I
s.
s R'-
9.
(
f e
e.-
=
1 i
i O
e
=
4 e
f i
%------.,w
,,,.-,-e+------.---
e.---%_%-.y--%
i#
w.,,,
.,.7%,,.
. y
.-3
,y=,y er v e,-
--+,,
cg,--
y
.--r-
-,w.-,
Question 12:
Has there been any-diversion of resources fran the NRC's Inspection and Enforcement effort to the licensing process?
Answer No personnel have been transferred from the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) as a result of the licensing recovery effort.
However.
some functions previously assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation were transferred to IE. These include the preparation of specific portions of Safety Evaluation Reports and the staffing of the Operations Center.
By so doing, some staff-years were made ayailable s
to NRR for the licensing efforts and were diverted from normal inspection and enforcement work.
In addition, lawyers have been shifted from enforce-ment to licensing work.
e e
j l
l l
l
Question 13:
Is it a proper interpretation of the Sholly case that any and all amendments to the license would be subject to a hearing upon the demand of an interested person?
Answer The Sholly case stands for the proposition that when requested by an interested person, a hearing must be held prior to the issuance of all facility license amendments, except for so..e amendments ordered by the '
Comission (as opposed to requested by the licensee) that may be made immediately effective because the public health, safety, or interest requires it.
See 10 CFR 2.202(f), 2.204.
l e
.t G
a l
I
)
l
Question 14:
Who is defined as an interested person?
Answer Under our rules and case precedent, an interested person is one who satisfies the judicial tests for standing in the Federal courts.
Generally, someone living within 30-40 miles or so of the plant could
- qualify as an interested person.
9 e
t y
Am 9
e a
e e
em
. =to e
O COMMISSICJER GILINSKY'S RESPONSE TO QUESTION POSED BY REP. HILER Question Do you feel that the interim licensing provisions would '
emasculate the public hearing process? If so, why? And wouldn't that view imply a lack of confidence in the procedures of the NRC?
- Answer The Commission originally proposed that it be granted the authority to issue low-power interim operating licenses on a temporary bas.is. ' That proposal seems to me to be consistent with our public safety responsi-bilities and with giving the public a fair hearing.
Issuing an interim full-power operating license in advance :." the completion of a hearing is another matter. Here, the utility would be permitted to engage in the activity which is the subject of the hearing. The incentives for the utility to participate fully in the hearing and to seek a speedy decision are very much reduced. As a result, the conduct of the hearing may be substantially harmed, with consequent effects both on the Connission's decision and on the way the public will view that decision.
I do not believe that this view implies a lack of confidence Qn NRC's safety review.
That process, much as any other bureaucratic process, needs to be constantly inspected and reviewed by an independent authority to maintain its quality.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0' Although this question was directed specifically to Commissioner Gilinsky, I question the advisability of seeking answers selectively from one Commissioner.
Such a practice does not provide the opportunity for balanced views.
Furthermore, I do not agree with Commissioner Gilinsky's reply.
In his ansner to this question, Commissioner Gilinsky offers no basis for change in incentive ';y the utility. The utility knovs that, even with interim licensing, if it doe: not satisfy the licensing board and the Commission, its plant can be shut down.
This is sign.ificant incentive to the utility to participate effectively in the hearing process.
5 e
e se e
-- +
.w y
- j-
7 pOC
'T,fi,,""'
'i
_gg c.evrx - c>yc-ou -
G he AU. C[USINC3S SC h.
m hg y
-u.
/
ded D09f'CM CNw N
(a y
Hoess or RI:rnaz:xTATrvas wuu:xc rme, n.c. mu June 26, 1981 Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
Thank you for appearing before the Subcomittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources last week.
In the interest of ensuring a balanced hearing record, I have submitted additional questions to be answered by the Comission.
Without intending to impose an undue burden on you as you prepare to conclude your service on the Comission, I would greatly appreciate receiving your personal response':to these questions.
It would be of great value to be able to include your remarks
, in the final report.
Congratulations and thank you for your contribution to public j
service.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincer 'y,
/ s-JOHN P.ILER Member of Conoress JH/1v 6/26..To Chairman's Office and Comissioner Gilinsky for Response Cpys to: Chm, Cars,RF, EDO, OCA.. 81-0868 2C'D C.4R:,:.s 3 8I 2 ) 22 QGL d
1.h 1
1 b /c D CJTDC.b 0 b(N f
FDR.
b
' 1.
How -=- y significant changes have been cade for the protec: ion of public health and ssfety as a resul: ef the public hearing process preceeding the gran:ing of an operating license?e 2.
What were these changes?
Please be specific.
3.
Would any aspect of the public safety be overlooked due to the issuan.:e of an interim license prior to the completion of the hearing process and issuance of the operating license?
If'so, please describe.
4.
How much risk to the public safety would there be in the grant-ing~of an interi= license'?
- 5., vnat kinds of risk factors will be considered in the decision to grant one?
c 6..
If interim licenses ara granted, is it possible that the hearing process can be : gore beneficial after a period of low-power operation?
7.
It has been i= plied that the public hearing process would not be as thorough if the utility had already received an interi=
license.
Is tha: the position of the NRC?
8.
Vna: steps will you take to ensure that the hearing process is not compro=ised by the issuance of an interin license?
How do you env:.sion the interi= ' licensing process werking?
9 10.
Ena: should inte '- censing le5 slation includei 1
'e 11.
Vna: safety and environmental reviews cust be co=pleted before theNRCcot$1dissueaninterimlicenseundertheHouseCo=nerce Co d:t'ee bill?
12.
Has there been any diversion of resources from the NRC's Inspection and Enforcement effort to the licensing process?
13.
.Is it a proper' interpretation of the Sho11v case that any and all amendments to the license would be subject to a hearing
'upon the demand of an interested person?
/
14 Vno is defined as an interested person?
QlTASTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER GILINSKY 1.
Do you feel that the inte d-
'd censing provisions would e=asculate the public hearing process?
If so, why?
And wouldn't that view i= ply a lack of confidence in the procedures of the NRC?
l I
t
[(p'^%q'c, s
UNITED STATES gj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, c.
W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555 ycaj June 30, 1981 C:4 AIRMAN The Honorrble John Hiler United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 1
Dear Congressman Hiler:
In answer to your letter of June 26th, I am providing these personal answers to the questions you pose.
I assume there will be Comission answers to your questions in due time.
My answers are.somewhat briefer and less specific than would be the case if I were not finishing my term of office today.
With that caveat, I am glad to respond to your request for my personal views.
The questions and answers follow.,
Question 1:
How many'significant changes have been made for the protection of public health and safe 1.y es a result of the public hearing process preceeding the granting of an operating license?
puestion2:
What were these changes? Please be specific.
Answer I do not think there have been any really significant changes in plant equipment or procedures to proteet the public h'ealth and safety as a result of hearings on operating licenses in the last four or five yeare.
I recall looking at this matter in response to
-a similar question from one of cur Congressional Committees.
It seems to me that there have been ten or a dozen instances over the past four or five years in which additional license conditions resulted from operating license hearings.
None of the additional conditions were of a class that I would call significant for safety, as I remember them.
Specifics as to these additional conditions will have to await the Comission's answer.
My files are either removed or packed for shipment at this writing,and time does not permit further investigation on my part.
e tM D4' slo 7aco u3
~
m
'The Honorable John Hiler Question 3:
Would any aspect of the public safety be overlooked due to the issuance of an interim license prior to the completion of the hearing process and issuance of the operating license?
If so, please describe.
Answer No, I do not think any aspect of public safety would be overlooked due to the issuance of an interim operating license.
t Ouestion 4:
How much risk to the public safety would there be in the granting of an interim license?
Answer None, in my view.
We all recogr.ize that the operation of nuclear power plants is not absolutely risk-free.
The aim of the Commission's review and licensing process is to assure that the risk is acceptably small and that adequate protection of the public health and safety in a case where a hearing, granting of an interim operating license is thereby provided.
The ha's been requested is exactly the same as granting a full-term operating license in a case where no hearing has been requested, and there is no difference in risk.
Question 5:
What kinds of risk factors will be considered in the decision to grant one?
/
Answer All of the nprmal staff, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and Commission review procedures will apply in granting an interim operating license and all of the risk factors that are considered in every case will be taken into account.
-Question 6:
If interim licenses are granted, is it possible that the hearing process can be more beneficial after a period of low-power operation?
Answer I doubt it, although-it is possible that there might be some aspects of the low power operation that would be of interest in the hearing.
Question 7:
It has been implied that the public hearing process would not be as thorough if the utility had already received an interim license.
Is that the position of the NRC?~
I
'The Honorable John Hiler Answer It is certainly not my position.
I would expect the hearing to go on without regard to the fact that an interim operating license had been issued.
Question 8:
What steps will you take to ensure that the hearing process is not compromised by the issuance of an interim license?
Answer I would expect that any indication of foot-dragging or delaying tactics in the hearing by the utility, or any party, would be dealt with vigorously by the presiding Board and, if necessary, by the Commission.
If the utility was the offending party, and the Commission considered the offense serious enough, I would expect the interim license to be revoked.
Question 9:
How do you_enyision the interim licensing process working?
Answer The process would work as described in Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and with the changes to Section 192 described in the House bill.
I think the Commission might want to consider interim operating licenses in steps--fuel loading and operation to some moderate power level as a first step, and then full power operation as a second step if that was necessary to avoid delays.
If that course were adopted, I would suggest 15 or 20 percent of full power as the limit for the first step, rather than the 5 percent we have used to date.
-Question 10:
What should' interim licensing legislation include?
Answer The present version of the House Commerce Committee bill includes the needed elements.
I would suggest one change in the present version, if that is p~ossible, to eliminate the possibility of having to hold two hearings after the interim license is issued instead of one hearing.
As it stands, the present version would seem to allow a hearing on the interim license itself, as well as the regular operating license hearing.
Since the extra hearing, which would come under Section 192, makes no sense at all, the bili language should be changed to remove the Section 192 hearing on the interim lice'nse.
That would leave the regular operating license hearing, under Section 189a, to be held as intended.
(
The Honorable Jonn Hiler Question 11:
Wnat safety and environmental reviews must be completed before the NRC could issue an interim license under the House Commerce Committee bill?
Answer All of them.
t Ouestion 12:
Has there been any diversion of resources from the NRC's Inspection and Enforcement effort to the licensing process?
Answer No, although there have been a few licensing tasks transferred to the Inspection and Enforcement Office.
These are tasks where the IE regional people are nest knowledgeable anyway, and do not, in my view, constitute any significant diversion of resources.
Question 13:
Is it a.propef interpretation of the Shelly case that any and all amendments to the license would be subject to a hearing upon the demand of an interested person?
Answer
/
That is my understanding of the ruling by the DC Circuit Court.
Ouestion 14:
Who is defined as an interested person?
Answer Under our rules, an interested party is anyone living within 50 piiles or so of the plant, or anyone with a definable interest in the area around a plant.
I seem to recall one case where a person was admitted as an interested party, even though he did not live in the 50-mile region, because he occasionally made canoe trips along a river in the vicinity of a plant.
I hope that these brief answers are of use to you in your consideration of the legislation pending before the Congress.
- interely, J
f sagseph M. Hendrie g
4
- - -