ML20141J224
| ML20141J224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1986 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Stafford R SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604250384 | |
| Download: ML20141J224 (3) | |
Text
.,
%o UNITED STATES l
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
o
{
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20355
\\...../
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER March 11,1985 The Honorable Robert T. Stafford, Chairman Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to provide my comments on the " Nuclear Power Plant Licensing and Standardization Act of 1085" proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Althouch I support legislation to bring about the greater use of standardization in nuclear power plant cesign and to correct the quality assurarce, construction and management problems which have occurred in recent years, I cannot support the Commission's proposal in its present 'orn.
The Commission's proposal does not go far enough in requiring the development of complete standardized designs, cnd it contains seriously flaved provisions which would undermine current safety standards and unreasonably restrict the public's right to participate in licensing proceedings. My concerns about the Commission's current proposal are described in greater detail belce.
Under the Commission's previous legislative proposal, which I supported, the prevision allowing for the issuance of a combined construction permit and operating license (CP/0L) required the application to contain " sufficient information to support the issuance of both a construction permit and an operating license" in accordance with present NRC regulations.
The Ccmission has watered this down to require l
submission merely of " sufficient information to support issuance of a i
combined construction permit and operating license." The Commission has not explained why a combined CP/0L should require less information than the separately issued CP and OL.
The difficulties presented by this lowered standard are aggravated by the Commission's decision to delete the requirement in our previous bill for a precperational review of the adequacy of a plant's construction, its readiness for operation, and the sufficiency of the emergency plenning acasures. The Commission has also declined to commit itself to pre-operational reviews 'of significant safety issues ret previously considered. The Commission argues that the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria specified i_n the combined CP/0L will assure the prcper corstruction of the plant and its readiness for operation. This ignores our unfortunate experiences in recent years with the unforeseen safety problems and with construction projects which have run into difficulties and have, in some cases, been cencelled.
DR E
RE
e 5
~ The Commission Iould have done better to stick pith its 1983 proposal which required it to nahe e ferral finding that construction had been completed and that the plant would operate in cen'crnity with the combined CP/0L, the Atonic Energy Act, and the NRC's regulations.
It is worth noting that in 1983 the Comission recorrended that it be required to conduct a supplemental reviev, prior to the commencement of operation, of any issues that were r.ot considered in prirr reviews of the facility.
I see no basis to support the Cormission's change in position on this irportant safety requirement.
The Commission's 1985 bill would place a very high threshold on the cbility of a member of the public to obtain a hearing after the issuerce of the cerbined CP/0L.
In order to designate an issue for a hearing the Comission would have to find that (a) the issue consists of a substential dispute of fact, (b) resolution of the issue is necessary for the Commissions decirion, (c) the issue cannot be resolved with sufficient accuracy except at a hearing, and (d) either (i) the issue was not and could not have been raised end resolved in any prior proceeding for that facility, or (ii) that (1) there has been a nonconformance with the license, (2) such nonconformance has not been corrected, and (3) such nonconformance cnuld materially and adversely affect the safe operation of the plant. As a practical metter, this thicket of obstecles will make it i
impossible fcr People living close to a plant to obtain a hearing on the issues such as emergency plarning, adequacy of plant ccrstruction and readiness 'or creration, which are of greatest concern to them. I am opposed to these new obstacles to state and public participation in our licensing proccedires.
I believe that the smooth operation of the licensing system does not reauire the public's hearing rights to be artificially restricted.
Indeed, I am persuaded that the Comission's efforts to silence the public will only stirulcte opposition to future nuclear power plants.
In eddition, I would point out that the combined CP/0L, early site review, and standardized design provisions of the bill contain a stetutory linitation on backfitting.
putting aside my reservations about the wisdem of the Comission's proposed backfitting standard (conditioning a backfit on a showing that it will stbstantially advance public health and safety by improtire ever611 plant safety), I recommend that the Cengress not enact I
these provisions. As the Ccmmission itself noted when it submitted its
'19P3 prcrosal, this is a problem which can be better addressed in the Commission's regulations.
Tha Ccmission has had ielativeh little experience with formal backfitting standards.
If this fornulation turns out to be unworkable and detrimental to safety, the regulctiers could be modified reittively easily. A statute would be far more difficult to amend.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission's propcsal shculd be redrafted (1) to ensure that plants with combined CP/0L's reet the same safety standards as plerts licensed under the present regu!etory scheme, and (2) to afford interested states and members of the public an opportunity for a hearing prior to plant operation on issues such es I
erergency planning, adequacy of plant construction and readiness for j
( '
operation.
In addition, I believe that a licensing and standardization bill should include other previsions not found in the Commission's proposal to bring about the greater use of impreved sterdardized designs and to address some of the construction and quality assurance problems which have been identified in recent years. To that end, I wculd reccamend adding provisions to the bill to recuire that future nuclear power plant applications use essentially complete starterdt:cd plant designs which incorporate as key desion elements greater simplicity, larger margins of safety, and other characteristics that promote more efficient construction, operation, reintenance and reliability.
I wculd also recommend requiring that future plant applications use a centralized management approach fer the construction project with specified check points to assure adequcte quality as construction proceeds. Such provisions would do much, in my view, to correct the nistakes of the past.
As a final matter, I would supgest that you consider combining legislation for future nuclear power plant licensing with legislation to extend and nodify the Price-Anderson Act. Just as licensing legislation would provide the framework for any #uture nuclear power plants, legislation amending and exterdir.g the Price-Anderson Act, such as that reccmmended by the Commission in its December 1983 report to'the Congress, would provide the basis for future public protection and compensation in the event of a nuclear accident in this country.
It would seem logical to censider these two related legisittive initiatives together.
I hope that these comments are help #ul to you-and the other members of the Committee.
... hgrgy igned by S
~
g I-[,mes K. Asselstine James K. Asselstire cc: Senator Lloyd Bentsen m
I e
.