ML20039B374

Testimony of Jm Hendrie on 810618 Before Subcommittee on Environ,Energy & Natural Resources

ML20039B374
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/18/1981
From:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20039B368	List: ML20039B367 ML20039B371 ML20039B374 ML20039B375
References
NUDOCS 8112220596
Download: ML20039B374 (12)

Text

.

ifiCLOSURE 2

• {

TESTIMONY OF

~

f CHAIRMAN JOSEPH M. HENDRIE BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JUNE 18, 1981 I am pleased to appear this morning to discuss the V

licensing of nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

{

As you know, we have some problems in the reactor E

I.t...

licensing area.

'Ibese are in large measure an outgrowth of 9

Q the Ehree Mile Island accident and result from the diversion Te of resources from reactor licensing that was necessary in l.

order to assure that the lessons of TMI were understood and applied to other nubear power plants. - The result has been

?

a significant enhancement of reactor safety, albeit at the

=-

cost of some delays in the processing of operating license applications.

As I shall describe, the Commission has taken a variety of steps designed to expedite the licensing process without

. impairing, in any significant way, the procedural rights k-guaranteed to participants in NRC proceedings, and without g2

.any compromise in the safety requirementscfor licensed, L -

{'

nuclear power plants.

These' steps are, in the main, designed to improve the licensing process, by increasing the efficiency with which hearings are conducted, shcrtening the period for

_~

Commission review of the decisions of its subordinate Boards, and making some useful procedural changee in the Commission's l

rules of practice.

We have also proposed legislation to 8112220596 811104 PDR COMMS NPCC CCRRESPONDENCE PDR

'3 permit low-power testing and operation in advance of the completion of adjudicatory hearings, and to overturn the r

n..'

Court of Appeals' decision in the Sholly case - a case

-g which, unless reversed by Congressional action or by the I

could seriously' impede the Commission's

~

~'

Suprene Court, licensing and regulatory processes.

p g

Before providing detailed information on those measures, u.

t p:.c.

I would like to describe the current state of

however, i.r.

~

m.g ---- nuclear reactor licensing,, and the delays which have bee p.-

us]

encountered in various cases.

T.>i *4

.:9-c.z50 U.i

[h.

The NRC Licensine Process -- Delavs and Their Causes.

? 4 ;. -s In the aftermath of the tree Mile Island accident in 7

4

.. 4 the Commission diverted a 'significant portion of

. -u 1@....fj March 1979, its resources to identifying the lessons to be learned from

=.y.

N.p'S.

that accident and to determining what requirements should be g g.

?.'fg..

imposed on existing and new facilities to assure their s(fe g c-v.

'Ihat effort culminated in the issuance of the

q::~;,

Q#7 operation.

v.

t

~

[$d@N^u NRC's TMI Action Plan, approved in June 1980.

and the NRC's

'.. y s 5.(c.

~

Tne development of the Action Plan, s--

=

. W - E: -5.

~-

.. M.:.tf +.

- ~ searching reevaluation of the safety of the 70 nuc' lear power

[ [ }/ "

resulted in a hiatus of plants already licensed to operate, p

i m

more than a year in the issuance of new operating licenses.

new operating After the Action Plan was completed, however, l,(.

k.

~

licenses were granted to the Sequoyah 1 and North Anna 2 I -

summer, and in the spring of this facilities, late last full power licenses were issued for Farley 2 and Salem-

year, while for Three of the four plants were uncontested, 2.

l the licensing board decision on all contested the fourth, w

br4fere TMI.

~

3

'Jhe overall picture is thias one of a licensing process S;

which, after a major dislocation, is returning to greater a.

w$

predictability, and at a considerably enhanced level of h7 safety.

At the same time, however, the institution of new w

iRI safety requirements has raised a number of new potential 4

rPa AY issues in the contested hearings for both operating licenses Some of these G,.

and construction permits around the country.

WQi proceedings concern units which were substantially complete

$'cL w=...-._

or which have P r.e

[

at the time of the 'Ihree Mile Island accident, W

Es; i been completed since tnen.

4;--c Accordingly, we now face a situation in which, for the

19. - 1

--/;j-first time, a significant 'nuinber of plants will be complete

. : i.. :

g-and ready to operate before the completion of required.

.m-

%f.h adjudicatory hearings.

We.have referred to these as " impacted W%

[ -? :'

plants, " and have provided monthly reports on their status Ff:

to the Committee on Appropriations.

One consequence of 3 :.-

j"'

these monthly reports is a monthly reappraisal by the Com'-

mission of licensing schedule projections.

These reappraisals

[1, kis!.E

- ~have indicated to the Commission a need for making sienificant K..

~

MG:.

~ improvement in the licensing process', Jand have been the k:.=. h ' -

basis for the corrective steps which I referred to earlier.

At present, there are nine impacted plants: Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Zimmer 1, San Onofre 2, Summer 1, Susquehanns 1, u

Waterford 3, Comanche Peak 1, and McGuire 1, with a total 1...

delay of 50 months by current estimates.

(Depending on events in the next few days, however, McGuire 1 could be removed from this

~

list.)

All nine involve contested proceedings.

For five of l

A~

1-

't 4

y

.v~

2 y

the staff safety evaluation is essentially the plants, and for the remaining plants the evaluation is

complete, For all these h...,j, 2{E expected to be finished by the end of August.

7 ;[

of delay is the hearing process.

.hi.l plants, the principal source y-%

Having described the 21ature of the delays presently.

c.

. k:'

I would like next to set being encountered and their causes, dorth -some of the actions which the Commissi Vi

,Q

~

Fd Q =...

. -ds in the process of taking to remedy these problems..

~r u.

sc g

. $ *.n. -

e s

dam NRC Corrective Actions _

A._

3,,gll In the late -winter and early spring of this year, the

~. ::;

Commission conducted a review of the docket of the At i

Safety and Licensing. Board Panel and of the status of the

..R The Commission

- y

^ ?lh] ^.

proceedings before individual licensing boards.

J held a series of public meetings at which the major elements 4

j['

of the agency's licensing process were examined in.some E

on May 20, 1981, of a f.

'Ihe outcome was the issuance, detail.

' Y:

p _

" Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,"

d.. f.

designed to provide guidance to the Commission's icensing Eff'.' *

',-hy'2;

y.. >.

boards 'in using management methods and other procedu'r n.

.. - DH '

devices to prevent unnecessary delay in the hearing process.

.m..s

.I A.' O';'.

~

i f

The Commission stressed that it was not urging alterat on o ing

', 2,:4-k the existing procedural framework, but rather encourag 4.;@,y to

.=; ;, -

boards to avail themselves of tools already in use,

' ~

by different licensing boards.

~

varying degrees, e

.a.

w

.. --a

5 the Policy Statement As,a matter of general guidance, directs licensing boards to ensure that parties to proceedings -

the NRC staff included - meet their obligations under the or face sanctions for their n-law and Commission regulations, r

af -

lE More specifically, the Commission directed fmilure to do so.

rf.

4.-

the boards to set and adhere to reasonable time schedules; p. :-

t-designating 3:~.

to consolidate interventions where appropriate, D~

4 h_ _ _

lead intervenors; to encourage negotiation prior to and settle procedural' a

s during the hearing, to resolve contentions, s,hh[f I

and better define issues; to manage discovery a

Eh'

disputes, more focused interrogatories, and 9 C through the use' of fewer,

{ ~t to supervise disoevery directly so as to minimize unnecessary y

$ f,

. [

delay; and to hold settlement conferences for the purpose of

.f_

narrowing or eliminating issues and of achieving resolution, wherever possible, of matters in controversy.

4 The Policy Statement further provides that licensing C.9 and should boards should make timely rulings on all n.atters,

ii, do so as early as practicable where the issue in question is

^

5:

[S~

Where Commission guldance crucial or potentially dispositive.

$$,f m -

the matter should be referred to the Appeal Board h; 0 is needed, The Licensing Board should

~.WG2 or the Commission promptly.

'cP

-q.

in the interest of efficiency and expedition, use v" '..

also, prefiled summary disposition procedures; require trial briefs,

.y i'

where

-(

testimony outlines, and cross-examination plans, 7~

appropriate; put opposing witnesses on the stand at the same w'

where doing so can illuminate particular technical

time, issues; and regpire parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues which they have raised.

~

=.

.~

y.,

6

.v. -e..

. ug:

. h.; -

stresses the Commission's Tig.:

Finally, the Policy. Statement

- - /.CI-expectation that decisions of licensing boards will not only'

.is. y.;;

??$

but also will issue as J'.k%t cont inue to 'be -f air and thorough, WJ

.4 soon as practicable after the submission of proposed & dings x

7

~ 2.

w of fact and conclusions of law.

I

_.1.

,t Having used the Policy Statement to provide general and.

.[:M,.,,@ -

specific guidance to the Licensing Boards,.the Commission

&p..jf d to bring greater efficiency.

4 Ihp:E45

..:. next adopted rule changes designe e

c

~ --

On May 22; 1981,..

y, m g

' and time ~iiness ~to..the J.icensing process.

,-e,n the Commission issued a final rcle amending its procedures

$7.1:,

' $fj,..q] -

regarding the time at which licensing board decisions become

-96N[fi i

effective. 'Wffiire formerly, under Appendix B to.Part 2 of -

'f' i

a licensing board's initial decision the Commission's rules,

' ??

3cdb.~

authorizing issuance of a construction permit or operating W W!N

]:#4..:;..?.

license did not become' effective until reviewed both by the

.t.

]

the revised rule eliminates thG Appeal Board and the Commission, m:a -

MAF-Ik'O Appeal Board from the review of the effectiveness of the 7 $2j. -

The effect is to shorten from

~...?.e:

ld.;.

licensing board's decision.

three months to one mont.h the span of time during which the

[.:i hhy';.

effectiveness of the decisien is automatically stayed by the

Q - 4$%.:: '.

~ ~ l Q~. '("

~_

. :];y-;

^

2. R J.

4 Commission review process.

the Commisrion adopted several amendments to M. 7..:

?

_ f,72M.

! ~

On June 2,

.. - n.

the rules of practice, designed to shorten the hearing e

W '..

process without reducing either the overall quality or the

~.;;,~

1 J -L :-

First, the new fairness of NRC adjudicatory proceedings.

m.v..,.

rule permits licensing boards to rule orally on written i

where formerly they were required to issue written

motions, t..

....4.J*

~]

j x

rulings on such motions.

Second, the rule prohibits parties I'

from filing answers to objections or to motions for recon-u unless authorized sideration with respect to prehearing orders,

':5 If the licensing board decides that 1.

j;:Op I by the licensing board.

a motion or an objection -has little or no merit on its face,

.y-

[' f L..[-

it need not delay the proceeding by entertaining other 41, d

.q-In addition, parties' responses to the motion or objection.

3 the Commission amended its rules to provide explicitly that 96.2.

.Q

/,.*5Y;...

the. filing -of a motion:.for reconsideration or an objection 7.,

will not stay the effectiveness of a prehearing order,

.{

JE unless the licensing board for good cause shown determines

, )- I '

that the decision should be stayed pending the board's-

.1-g-

The rule change also revised the time limits for 4 -

action.

.s

['

the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of and eliminated the. requirement that motions for summary

. law, disposition be submitted no later than 45 days before the commencement of the hearing.

Under the amended rule, motion,s for summary disposition may be filed at any time, but boards

, 4 are directed to reject motions filed just before the heari^ng l,. 'f k

. or during the hearing itself, when response to such motions

.;u~=

yI fb

, @t %

would divert tne resources. of the parties or the board from

-l - 30.^,

1.

The Commission e'so established a 10-

. 's -

the hearing itself.

~[

day period in which parties may file an answer in support of

.c Under or in opposition to a motion for sunmary disposition.

4 ?

individual licensing boards estab3ished existing procedures, time limits on a case-by-case basis.

Y t

l

o c.

J.

among the corrective actions which are already

Finally, 4$

the Commission on the subject of final Commission rules, May 20 amended its rules to provide that alternative site 0

5 j

~;.2:

T$!.

contentions will not be considered in operating license j

!F.#

- - e.y reviews.

..Me Commission has also directed its staff te prepare F.:~ w.

a proposed rale which would reduce or eliminate requirements NN with respect to the financial qualifications required of

,M.i..fl c.

In addition, the Commission voted on'

~

I y.4 ~. m.z.."" nuclear licensees.

f a

June 2 to solicit public comment on proposed changes in the k.g :.

%ese rules of practice governing licensing proceedings.,

ag!q changes are desTgned to increase the efficiency of the rn Commission's hearing process, without depriving participants 4:

One such change would;

MGF.

of substantive or procedural rights.

yg require a person. petitioning to intervene in an NRC proceeding w.w

, @u -

to net forth at the outset additional information in support

.rW4 Wi$

Yne exact Commission proposal is in-of his intervention.

h., '.

One alternative would require the form of two alternatives.

< (p., g, ).T

. the would-be intervenor to demonstrat.e the f acts on w hich TU..

NW.t. +.

and the sources or

..,ff;p F 7 his contention or contentions are, based,

.x.

M-documents which havn been or will be used to establish tho J

.g

. d. ' r' ~ -

O-l This rule change would permit the presiding of ficers facts.

~~j ~ "

to exclude contentions which are either insufficiently

. ~ '\\,

The second formulation specific or inadequately supported.

p of the proposed change would raise the threshold for admitting 9('

contentions by requiring the intervenor to assert facts which if proved would be legally sufficient to establish the-validity of that contention.

~-

i e

e e

s-n a

f 9

. +.

~

Another proposed rule change would limit to 50 the I

1

, :2,

,,} J.c,

number of interrogatories which a party may file on another

. e-sijg):k The proposal would permit the 6f.%yg.,.p {y party in a single proceeding.

w E

presiding officer to authorize further interrogatories,

[-M M},',y' y-on a finding that the information sought is assential

however, to the preparation of the case and not otherwise reasonably

. m.

'Ah sQ Q g.

and also that the requesting party has not used N

available,

(E 1

.E This proposed

' +.f "

~

Its first 50 interrogatories improvidently.

~

rule change is' analogous to the limits on interrogatories i.c.

~

M~V which have been adopted by more than 20 federal district

.y

~

Lhy.,7, Y t h

,l

'~

Still other proposed rule changes 9.-

. n.?J@d.r. -i courts in recent years.

', 3EQ would authorize the Boards to require oral responses to

~

motions to compel discovery, and to require the service of 1

f., g :f.h

.~

w... a. :

wi-~ ;..

documents by express mail.

.Qf.: f.

. 9hpg;s The Commission has also taken a number of internal 9,?

management measures designed to better utilize existing

,'.T 4 is l.

s..

resources for the timely completion of the staff's tech'nical

.g..;y46 4...

Since early March of this year, w

staff mer.bers of reviews.

r?

(NRR) and the

s... c; C';. " --

the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation c.;i.2 I.I.i,'.......

Ma%%.h :..

Office of the Executive Legal Director (ELD) have been on a

.w 1,w a;:.-

Personnel have also been

. 1;:.m. :..

mandatory overtime work schedule.

',"x transferred to NRR from other offices within the agency to

=

1 s ?.f.%.:-

assist in reviewing casework, and some NRR assignments have

'j

~ -

In order to free NRR been delegated to other NRC offices.

g_:;..,

personnel to perform technical reviews on licensing cases,

. _... c some other NRR projects of lower priority have been delayed.

l

10

~

a The National Lnboratories hcvo be n asked to perform cdditional

~

technical assistance work in connection with case reviews, We result M;.

as well as non-casework-related assignments.

will be to make more NRR staff time available for in-house p ;:

,A~

l' i

Also, additional members were

^#L Jdb

. operating license rev ews.

'l T

.added to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel and the.'

4

~

5 4

..' Boards in many cases were reconstituted to minimize schedule-

>e w ca.

..,.y.7 r.,s -

~.V. @

conflicts.

We project that these steps will result in immediate ic.

ti u

u,.

n;n q

@ f ' ~~ lienefits in reducing delays in issuing operating licenses.

u y

for facilities scheduled to be licensed in fiscal years 1981 T

M and in permitting the staff tc achieve a review M

and 1982,

- c.1::t l schedule cons'isTe'nt with the expected completion dates fo-

.9 Ms those facilities scheduled to receive operating licenses in l

)dk fiscal year 1983.

<.e.

The Commission has also forwarded two legislative M92 "q

proposals to the Congress with a view to eliminating actual gg The

. : dr:

or potential delay in the reactor licensing process.

\\

first of these would overturn the principal adverse ruling

.: 7q -

..gf.j.

in the recent decision of the United States Court.of Appeals

~ r ' :,u.-

' [M[ik -

FZ In

, M '.524 for -the District of Columbia Circuit in Sho11v v. NRC.

' "GS -

.. 'i.~'it: -

a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled --

[ [ [-

that case, erroneously, in our view -- that the Commission must hold a

... x if.,

prior hearing on demand from any interested person before it

,..w

~ '

can issue a license amendment' that involves "no significant

,~ '.

hazards consideration."

This position is contrary, we 1*-

and contradicts consistentl believe, to the intent of Congress, l

~

\\

yy J,l, Uhe Commission has yet applied NPC policy over many years.

• "c however, as the

}

to be required to comply with that decision,

.J.Q~~.j ;

court's mandate continues to be stayed -- most recently, by

.:n.;;. -

.'. N.

the decision of the Supreme Court to take review of the either by

k. - ~-

.Unless the decision is overturned, however, case.

q.p;i the Sholly decision E}f[

the Congress or by the Supreme Court,

%:f could require hearings on many or al.1 of some 400 such

'T The effect anendments issued by the Commission each year.

ti',; ;

a....

as of such a burden en the Commission's licensing process,

'1 well as on other agency activities, could be drastic.

The second o,f _the two legislative proposals would amend the Atomic Energy Act to authorize the Commission to issue an interim operating license permitting fuel loading and J

low-power operation and testing in advance of the conduct or completion of any required hearing.

Such operation and and.

testing would be limited to 5 percent of full power, would require a finding by the Commission that such action 9

is necessary in the public interest in order to avoid the -

,.. /',:

consequences of unnecessary delay in the operation of a

[~"6 - ~ - - '

In all respects other than completed nuclear power plant.

s i,g ' _ ~

the completion of the hearing, the Commission would have to find that all applicable requirements have been mat prior to W

allowing such interim operations.

m We are pleased to note that provisions on reversal of the Sho11y decision and on interim operating license authority have been included in current authorization bill drafts in

^'

12 both the House and Senate.

The forms of the various provisions differ from the Commission's recommendations and you may want to hear the views of the individual Commissioners on them.

In sum, the Commission is taking a broad range of actions in order to eliminate unnecessary delay from the licensing process: through internal discipline of the hearing 2

process, better management of agency resourcas, rule changes,-

and legislative proposals.

Our objective throughout' has been to increase efficiency without impairing the right of effective public paH icipation, and to assure that the safety of licensed nuclear power plants remains the paramount' consideration.

e e

s y-l k

I

~