ML20041F790

Forwards Written in Lieu of Oral Questions Which Would Have Been Asked at Subcommittee on Energy Conservation & Power Hearing.Independence & Integrity of Commission Should Not Be Compromised

ML20041F790
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/08/1982
From:	Moorhead C HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8203170416
Download: ML20041F790 (5)

Text

.m.m. e,o

, 4.

u..

=. *..?:: %

CL"""h*.

'

J'.~=:.':"!

= " =.';,',"-

U.fip. J)ouse of Representatibeff E[,'.!$,bM.,.

M'Ih[r-Committee on Energy anb Commerce EU Esem 2123. Eartum y>ouse ottics Nuining,

~

=,;=".";,,

u;, g='=== *^u -

Essfjfngton, D.C.

20515

""t",'O."2':i.""-

C'" 'i.M' "'"'

"'lsi.""0.".'

L"v*".'O.W."%.

March 8,1982 M/

4 "2"1T "d."L.

""O."f."J "2.

%"n="."",a". '-

s 1

. icq s

g

~

.uru u..au ru.

Ji W2a {

cm.,c'o"."a" O ",7.sc,oa

t

q} taw Q::p"n, ht Honorable Nunzio Palladino 7

8 M'r[rM Chaiman

,a n gnWD p*,..9 Q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J

Washington, D.C. 20555 pa00 3 y g H.C.g ' 3 2.d Co

Dear Chaiman Palladino:

I regret that a previously scheduled mark-up in the Full Judiciary Com--

mittee prevented me from seeing you again at the hearing last week before the Subcmmittee on Energy Conservation and Power.

I am sorry I was unable to wel-come you before the Subcommittee, because I want you to know I heartily endorse your and the entire Commission's efforts to refonn and simplify the licensing process and reduce your backlog of operating license cases.

I am very concerned about continued reports in recent weeks that the Commission's own independence may be threatened by the political nature of recent interventions, especially in the Diablo Canyon case.

As Chaiman Dingell wrote you two years ago in regard to another example of political intemeddling in the licensing process, "To allow nuclear regulation to become a political football, with the Pr'esident's Commission as rookie quarterback and

~

head coach combined, would be a serious abdication of your Congressionally designated role as lead agency in this field."

l What Chaiman Dingell said then is more true today.

I call on you in i

no uncertain terms to resist any such attempts by intervenors, whether from out I

in the State Houses or here in Washington, to compromise the independence and integri ty of the Commission in reviewing the Diablo Canyon case and other pending licensing cases.

l I remind you the statutory duty of the Commission is not altered by attempts by third-parties to redefine the word " independent" in a way inconsistent with Commission precedents. California's need for the power to be generated by the Diablo Canyon plant has already been established by regulatory decisions and is self-evident from the $28 million in replacement power costs and carrying charges Californians are paying each month the plant is delayed. The Commission's statutory duty is to as:ure that the public health and safety, and common defense and security are met in licensing the plant, not to decide whether nuclear power-plants are politically necessary or not.

y s

I(

8203170416 820308 PDR ADOCK 05000275 U

pop

Hon, Runzio Palladino

~

March 8, 1982 Page Two As you know, both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Full House last year voted by an overwhelming margin to authorize the Commission to stream-line and speed the licensing of nuclear powerplants.

I hope the Commission will continue to interpret those votes as a strong mandate for further licensing refonns -- refoms which will not only simplify nuclear licensing, but also increase safety and quality assurance by providng more generic predictability and certainty.

In particular, I understand the Commission is aggressively reviewing those aspects of the licensir.g process which, because of contradictory safety requirements and lack of standardization and generic application, may have actually limited rather than increased safety since the Three Mile Island accident and possibly even since the Calvert Cliffs decision.

I strongly urge you to continue expeditiously to administratively improve and simplify the licensing process, and to forward to Congress as soon as possible any legislative changes you find necessary in licensing requirements.

I believe the mandate in our Committee for comprehensive changes in licensing requirements under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, mcy run even deeper than the mandate last year for short-tem refoms.

Finally, I urge the Commission to review the frequency of emergency response drills it is now requiring of State and local emergency officials in jurisdictions surrounding nuclear powerplants. My colleague, Representative Tom Corcoran, has infomed me that local officials in several counties in his District consider the benefits of these multiple emergency drills to be far exceeded by their costs to local public safety budgets.

I hope the Commission will consider impacts on future budgets (and therefore on future preparedness) of local emergency personnel when it detennines the required frequency of current emergency drills.

I attach a list of questions which I would appreciate being answered by the Commission in lieu of the oral questions I would have asked at the Subcommittee ^

hearing.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sinc ely, C

os

. Moorhead Rankin. Minority Menber Subcamittee on Energy Conservation and Power Attachments

' HEARINGS BEFORE' THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER MARCH 3, 1982 OVERSIGHT - NRC FY 83 BUDGET QUESTIONS ON NUCLEAR WASTE 1.

DOE projects that utilities will require of f-site spent fuel storage capacity beginning in 1986 and growing to between 13,000 and 22,000 metric tons by the year 2000.

What is your current assessment of the needs?

2.

What impact will the recent New York Federal court case on DOT's hazardous materials regulations have on the transshipment of spent fuel?

3.

Do you support the streamlined licensing procedures for on-site spent fuel storage expansion contained in S.1662 as reported by the Senate Energy and Environment Committees?

4.

Under current licensing procedures, do you believe that the Commission can license a first-of-a-kind deep geologic waste reposito ry in 2 years?

4 years?

8 years?

Considering the uncertainties in the cu'rrent licensing process, would you support permitting construction to begin on parts of th'e waste repository on an interim basis, as long as waste is not actually emplaced in the repository?

, OUESTIONS ON LICENSING REFORM 1.

When do you exp ect to impl ement recommenda tions of your licensing re form task force?

~

2.

When do you expect to forward legislation on licensing reforms?

3.

Do you expect to include language on standardization of power plant designs in such legislation?

4.

Has the lack of standardized designs helped or hindered quali ty assurance on nuclear power plants?

5.

Has the lack of standardized designs increased or decreased safety assurances?

6.

In a March 12, 1981, letter to Rep. Tom Bevill, former NRC Chai rman Hendrie forwarded a memorandum of options to accelerate the licensing process prepared by NRC staf f.

• Please provide an

~

update on the Commission's review of these options, including a list of those formally evaluated, adopted or rejected by the Commission and any written justifications accompanying each such decision.

7.

Please provide a summary of all current or future Commission ef forts to rep 7 ace Commission regulatory or enforcement requirements wi th self-regulation or enfcreement by the industry itself, such as in the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation's proposal for a nuclear plant construction qual-ity management program.

QUESTIONS ON DIABLO CANYON - INDEPENDENCE OF CONSULTANTS 1.

The independence and prof essional integrity of accountants, engineers, architects, and other independent contractors, according to their ethical standards, i s not deemed to be jeopardized by prior empl oyment.

In the case of independent auditors hired to review power plant design and safety, do you believe that such auditors are incapable of impartial judgment solely by reason of contract or hiring by the power plant applicant?

In other words, i f the quality and integrity of the auditor is unquestioned, why should he be deemed ineligible by reason of hiring by the applicant?

Are not the applicants themselves responsible for the safety of their plant?

In fatt, is not over-reliance on independent consultants l

part of the problem in current quality assurance, not part of the i

solution?

1 l

2.

Did Pacific Gas and Electric, any of its of ficers or employees raake a wilf ul, intentional or knowingly f alse statement in connection wi th the October, 1981, audit conducted by Robert L. Cloud Associates regarding the Diablo Canyon plant?

Did Pacific Gas and Electric, any of its of ficers or employees wilfully, intentionally or knowingly mislead the Commission in connection with such audit?

If so, pl ease define the terms "wil f ul", "i ntentional", " knowingly",

"f alse" or "mi sleading" as used by the Commission in reaching such a conclusion.

- _ -.