ML20148M781
| ML20148M781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1977 |
| From: | Strauss P NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Kennedy R, Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012240037 | |
| Download: ML20148M781 (53) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . . . . . . . _ . . . ...._ _ - +.
, e s : .
. i " " N .'
UNITED STATES ' * , a *. ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisslON (mff. y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 , s.- . .. / .9 June 1 '1977 - 1 4 an'y..':RAliDUM FOR:' Chairman Rowden Commissioner Gilinsky
. p p
Commissioner Kennedy // . EE is - TROM. Peter L. Strauss - General r,ounsel, u
.SU3 JECT: NRC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS c
This paper is sut itted as a result of the Commission's discussion on ~ April 18, 1977, of my previous paper on the same subject dated March 8, p 1971. During that discussion, interest was expressed in deve?oping addi- 5 tional information on five possible legislative initiatives: civil [ penalties; protection of licensee personnel; exemption of safeguards 1 information from the Freedom of Information Act; amending the Commission's
's quorum requirement; and upgrading the Director of the Office of-Inrpection .
and Enforcement. This memorandum and the attachments address those five areas of interest. ir
- (1) Civil Penalties (Attachment I) '
i You have earlier considered the quettion of whether legislation should be sought amending HRC's authority to impose civil penalties for license violations through administrative procedures, rather than through the present system of having collection actions brought by the Attorney General. ' Agreement was reached that such a procedure would be desirable and appro-priate. A second aspect of your April 18 discussion focused on the proposal o increase the maximum allowable penalty for each violation from the present
- x00 to $25,000. The first portion of the attachment presents further infor.aation bearing upon the issue of the increase in penalty limits. The we.rience of other federal agencies having com; arable experience is cited.
Br.rver, Appendix B of Attachment I contains a memorandum to me from Irn.t Volgonau, indicating that the Office of Inspection and Enforcement mer"ntly has underway a study of a wide range of incentives for licensees, which includes 'a detailed examination of the civil penalty question. I&E tnerefore takes the view that a recommendation concerning the administrative muoiition of civil penalties be deferred until September 30, when the study ' i . scheduled for completion. Although there is general agreet.ent in the . Jan t.c t: , 5
@ . ..r l un R. S toiber .
Jh4-R30 1
-1 8012240037- ,
,n..
lb
.xx = . . . _
- .y
- j. -
.~
~
\ ~
- S '.., 2 June 1,1977
..i.i m on
,,....,. i .n concerning the administrative imposition concept, it would be
. , , .;,;.. to link a Comission request for legislation along these lines
. fie recommendations to Congress on the amount of any increased g 4
..,. i,,, ;,enal ty limi ts we believe necessary. Therefore, I concur in
'f
~
, .: :.:nau's recommendation to await the results of the I&E study before
.. : ~.-i tting our recommendation to the Congress. Appendix B to the attach- ;
a contains a revised paper supporting a new civil penalty section, and 9 if t of the amended statute. I would appreciate your reviewing the u.:;. ige of the statute and the attached explanatory memorandum which would' i: . ) be submitted to the Congress. Such a procedure would permit the Com-i nicn staff to refine the proposal during the interval in which we await .
. cwpletion of the study. It would enable the Commission to proceed
.. .n dispatch, once all the evidence.is in. .
p. i
; .') Protection of Licensee Personnel (Attachment II)
.. Indicated in Attachment II, the staff's study of measures which might
. taken to protect licensee and construction personnel from retribution .
or furnishing information to the Commission is scheduled for completion e tne end of this month. The attached paper briefly reflects the pre-1 -inary direction of the staff's thinking on this subject, as reflected n e.onversations with this Office. It appears that the emerging conclu-
.iin is that, although the Comission possesses authority to take measures nw:n would provide some protection and encouragement to informants, that b .
....h measures would be incomplete and fragmentary. Therefore, the staff
- . tending to the view that-it would be advisable to seek legislation !;
.neporating a compre.hensive range of protection measures, rather than L
. put a partial regime into place. A full discussion of the rationale wr seeking legislation, and information suppcrting any recommendation. -
aill be forwarded as soon as the staff's efforts are completed. . ( 3) Exemotion of Safecuards Information from the Freedom of Information ~ ic,t_{AttachmentIII) s
.i.:hment III contains a discussion of the need to seek legislation to e
" wpt certain Comission safeguards information from disclosure under the l
; i r euom of Information Act, and concluded that no such icgislation should me;ht. Initially, it should be recognized that the Congress has been
; .trui.ely reluctant to support individual agencies in attempts to carve
. li> crete exceptions to FOIA. Therefore, the analysis starts from the a se tnat legislation should not be sought unless a clear need can be o a o l a h.d . Otherwise, the Commission would be subject to severe criti-t r...t it was attempting to evade its responsibilities under F0IA and ner "oponness in government" enactments. During the " shake-down" period
- , ', r . - havarnment in the Sunshine Act, Congrsss can be expected to be U M im larly sensitive on this issue. The paper further concludes that t
. *:y j
; "n
- 3. .
Tne' Comission 3 June 1.1977 h__ y the types of safeguards information with which the Comission is concerned
- can adequately be protected under current general exemptions in the F0IA . 5 9 or by the Comission's ability (confirmed by the National Security Council) 2 -
to classify the information in question. In this regard, exemption four is - of the FOIA provides protection to security. plans for light water reactors ; and fuel cycle facilities. This has been judicially confirmed in the !5 ".i
~Izcak Wal ton League decision. Material accounting data and site-specific deficiencies are subject to classification pursuant to the recomendation of the National Security Council. A final category of information -- design ~
threat information -- no longer raises F0IA difficulties, in view of the . Commission's departure from using a strict numerical basis for such infor-mation. The paper concluded by noting that a National Security Council rev.iew of the. issue is apparently taking place, and that the Commission should closely follow the results of that review to insure that. the need to seek legislation in this area does not arise in the future. (4) Comission o Quorum Requirements (Attachment IV) Attachment iV includes a revised discussion of the desirability of seeking lenislation to amend Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act to el.imi-na'te the " physical presence" requirement of a quorum of Commissioners before action can be taken. A more complete discussion of the legislative history and administrative law background of the Commission's quorum rule is con-tained in the January 28 memorandum appended to my legislative program paper of March 8. Two additional matters are discussed in Attachment IV. The first (in Section II of the attachment) is the nature of procedures the Commission might wish to adopt for conducting its activities in the event the quorum requirement is altered by legislation. The second goes somewhat beyond the scope of a legislative proposal, and outlines some of the diffi- , culties which can be anticipated and possible remedial- steps the Comission _ , may wish to consider, if further Commissioner appointments are not completed befcre July 1. Section III of the attachment is not meant to embody a com-prehensive review of consequences which would flow from a reduction of the number of Commissioners below the statutory quorum; it is merely intended to suggest potentici problems wnich sh0uld be recognized. The discussion in Section III could also serve as the basis for a more complete 0GC analy- . sis of how a " quorum-less" Commission could ceatinue to function, if the L
'Comnission believes such analysis would be desirable. We would appreciate Connission guidance on what additional issues, not touched upon in Section
[ L III, should be addressed. (5) Upgrading the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement ; (Attachment V) y Attachment V contains two memoranda to Daniel J. Donoghue from Calvin C. Jones, Director of the Division of Organizatio'n and Personnel concerning . q L !
. ~. :,9 The Commission 4 June 1. 1977 ..'
(i__
. a steps which cc uld be taken to upgrade the Director of the Commission's
- Office of Inspection and Enforcement to the same level as that of other statutory HRC offices. The first memorandum (dated April 22) omitted - ,
discussion of the alternative of securing the desired upgrading through amendment of Title 5 of the United States Code, rather than through amend- ' [i!. cent of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The second memorandum - (dated May 5) develops the Title 5 alternative, which the Commission's discussion of April 18 focused on as most desirable from an initial view-point. Both the Office of Administration and the Office of the General ;;; Counsel recommend that the Commission select alternative (b) in the April 22 memorandum, as the means which should be recommended to the ' Congress for achieving the desired upgrading. Under this alternative, one of the authorized Level V positions would be upgraded to a Level IV, to be " appointed by the Commission and serve at the pleasure of. and be removable by the Commission." Remaining Level V positions woul'd continue to be career status.
~
Attachments as stated cc w/ attachments: L. Gossick, EDO H. Shapar, ELD fl. Terrell, OPE C. Kammerer, OCA SECY(2) - b r [- 4 m P t [j I
- 8* " .y 1977 q CONGRESSIONALSCOREUARD RheaP..Frader .
443-2099
- E ~.RGY FACILITY SITING LEGISLATION
' C0f;GRESS. 95TH C0ftGRESS. IST SESSION STATUS CO5PIEf TS , , Nti:BER SPONSOR TIYLE INTRO. . Leahy. D-Vt.
'1 hnend Section 107 3/23/77 Comittee on Energy and natural Delegate power to state legisla.
S.1105 of Energy Peorgant- Resources tives to veto ERDA site zation Act of 1974 . . . _ _ __ selec!lon for radioactive waste storage.
........... .................i H.R.5369 Skubitz R-Ka. 3/22/77 Conunittee on Interior and -
ngr. - . Insular Affairs , _ _ IFGISLATION Amend Atomic Energy Comittee on Interior and Prohibit licensing a't^$ormer. H.R.5234 Bingham. D-N.Y. 3/21/77 cial nuclear fuel reproces. facil. Act of 1954 Insular Affairs Connittee on Interior and Affected states m:sst approve H.R.5376 Udall. D-Ariz. 7 mend Atomic Energy 3/22/77 Insular Affairs construction license applications Act of 1954
- Amend Atomic Energy 3/22/77 Comittee on Interior and . State disapproval . 90-cay H.R.5377 Udall. D-Ariz. Insular Affairs period following issued license.
Act of 1954 Electric Utility 4fjgj77 Connittee on Energy and Natural Strengthen State electric R 0 t 0 5.1300 Durkin. D-N.H. Resources utility regulatory agencies. Rate Reform Act gg7g Is w0VD:EtiT ACTS li.R.6003 ' Allen. D-Tenn. Lifeline and Elec' 4/5/77 Comittee on Interstate and Reform electric energy tric Rate Act Foreign Commerce rulemaking. Establish National Recommend policies & progranis I S.1007 Randolph. D-W.Va. Comission on 3/15/77 Comittee on Energy and Natural to reconcile nat";ial energy. rngro, polici s I?cs urces requireirent s. GERGY
. hlM). .garg,.0-{g]Q,_.. Cogeneration & Waste,..y25/??,,,Conun. on,, Energy / Natural Resources
. Promote recovery of waste d.R.6661.. Ottinger. D-M.Y. Heat Utilization Act 4/26/77 Conn. on Interstate 5o~reia~n~QQ;*-- energy resources.
~~
H.R.5862 Weaver, D-Ore. aag tion 3/31/77 In N aN Eorei [ N Irne N [.* fun fctrs, (,tagnNteYcYic"enYgh' Acth197N [ $o 3 i Works and ranspor.tation Packfic N.W. area. , i7"""7* ??" t s W -s _ed,
.m s J . e. 1 .c w i t i e - t f G- m- e c. m c **__ _ _ _ _
. p .
9 t e S
.f.... . .
4
..l..C..'.'
E.l..
.4A..
y .:..... t o H H b m <. 1:- H I. . . 4 o U
- e 9
e . 4 e a 0 i
'l
'j 4 I 4
1 J
}'
?
- i. i
, L.. . .
..j
.,. T=
, S.110)
H.R.5369 IIICHLICIITS OF S.1105 H.R.5359 Section 107 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 16 amended by adding following new subsection.
"(g) (1) The Energy Research and Development Adminf etration must publicly notify the presiding officers of the State legislature of its intent to explore a site in that State for the purpose of construction of a radioactive vaste storage facility. -
"(2) The Energy Research a' n d Development Administration shall not permit contracting for constructior of a radioactive vaste storage facility at a site in a State where the State Icgislature by joint or concurrent resolution states that i that site shall not be used for such purpose."
e . O e 9 4 O
.-**---+--?r- .
' PUI' IT U'U II M
'- ;. m-
LR.34J4 UN g.
. HICULICitTS OF '
!I.R.5234 Flutonium Licensing Control Act of 1977 Sze. 2. Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended -
by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: '
"e. No license shall be issued to any person to - Jl
, ' . $ t i
"(1) own or operate any nuclear power reactor fueled in whole or in part with recovered plutonium, or V * '\' ~ , ;-
c a j . i ' ' ' g J\0
\/
- ~---. '
"(2) process spent nuclear reactor fuct in order to recover ' Q, 6*'.
;N plutonium: Provided. That such prohibition shall not g .
- n. apply to any activities necessary to the conduct of *
- g ;
G s I s' - the United States Military defense programs." , Sec. 3. Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended
.by adding at the end thereof the folleving new subsections:
"dd. The term ' nuclear power reactor' means any commercial nuclear reactor operated for the purpose of'generatina electricity (whether owned by governrnent or privatw sources or both) and any such demonstration or prototype reactor, but does not include any such reactor operated solely for basic research
!i and experimental purposes. *
"(te. The term ' plutonium' means pure plutonium, plutonium oxide and any other plutonium compound.
""ff. The term ' spent nuclear reactor fuel' means any material which forms part of a used fuel assembly for a nuclear espetimental, power or production reactor."
-l! O . O
*1
!!I 'i! ; !
, , _ . @_,; . . , . L _ ;_ . - e r x _. . a , , , , <r S' i ,
~m H.R.5376 HICutlCUTS OF H.R.5376 Ta amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide that no "c. Approval by a State under subsection a. shall be exercised in epplications for construction licenses under the Act for such manner as is provided under State law for such purpose, production or utilization facilities shall be acted upon by except that no standard or requirement imposed by the State the Commission unless the proposed facility has been as a condition of its approval (other than a requirement approved by affected States. solely relating to facility location) may be inconsistent, as determined by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, with That (a) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 and any standard or requirement applicable to such facility fs11oving) is amended by inserting the following new section pursuant to this Act. Such Board may not determine a State hfter section 192:
standard or requirement to be inconsistent for purpose of this subsection solely on the basis that such standard or sic. 193. State Disapproval of Construction Licennes requirement requires more stringent safety neasures than are "a. No application for a license for construction or modification of any production or utilization facility "d. for purposes of this section, the term 'affected State' means may be issued by the Commission unless the applicant the State within whose Loundaries the proposed construction or for such license establishes that such construction modification of a production or utilization facility will or modification has been approved, before application occur." - to the Commission for such license, by affected States. (b) The table of contents for such Act is amended by inserting "b. State law may permit approval for purposes of subsection e. after the item relating to section 192 the followings on the basis of a finding -
"(1) that the location of the proposed facility is in compliance with applicable State law (including State land uso, and environmental laws). and
"(2) that construction of the proposed facility would be consistent with State energy developcent plans which plans may take into account various considera-tions such as economics, impacts upon aid and water quality. and other possible hazards to health or the environment, or on such other basis as may be determined under State law. ,
..., , m-'t-- . IM' ;[M ;-
. N.R.5311 r"'%
~
r ElCHLICHTS OF H.R.5377 That (a) the Atemic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 and "d. for purposes of this section, the term 'affected following) is ancrded by ir,scrtir.g the following new section State' means the' State within whose boundaries after cection 192: the proposed construction or modification of a production or utilization facility will occur." Sec. 193. State Dirapproval of construction Licenses. (b) The table of contents for such Act As amended by "s. Upon the issuance of any license to construct inserting after tne item relating to section 192 or modify any production or utilizction the following: facility. the Consission shall notify
- affected States. "Sec. 193. State disapproval of construction license s."
"b. No license for "snstruction or modificatinn of any production or utilization facility shall take effect if such licenec is dis-approved by an affected State before tbc expiratien of the ninety-day period which begins on the date of notice by the Com-mission to such State under subsection a.
"c. Disapproval,by a State under subsection b.
shall be exercised in such manner as is pro- - vided under State law far such purpose, except that no standard or requirement imposed by the State as a condition of its - approval (other than a requirement solely relating to facility location) may be incon-sistent, as deternined by the Aconic Safety and Licensing Board, with any standard or requirement applicable to such facility pursuant to this Act. Such Board may not ' determine a State standard or requirement . to be inconsistent for purposes of this . subsection solely on the basis that such standard or requirceent requires mors stringent safety measures than are . - required pursuant to this Act. C l
~ - - . . , - - _ _. ..
O e e 0 th
* !":E
' 6 i.=
v
$ is e s
+
j:: p.. b
+
j [. 4 0 G O N m H f-N 1
- i. .
>4 H
U 8 E P G G
+
I e i 0 f
~' m~~ . S01300 ElCHLICHTS OF S.1300 ELECTRIC UTILITT RATE RD'ORM ACT l!i Title I. ceneral Provisions Sec. 203. National Minimum Standards for Electric Utility Rate Regulation Sec. 101. Findings Sec. 204. Load Management Technig-2es (5) The inequitable distribution of ecsts in electric rate schedules often results in (a) , Each State regulatory ancharity which has assumed some classes of consumers paying less than ;aforcement responsibility shall consider in an .
the full cost of the service they receive.. evidentiary he;<ing. initially within one year of including the cost of capacity needed to meet demand reliably during peak load the date of enactment of this Act and thercaf ter no less of ten than once during each subsequent two-periods, and thereby encourages wasteful use of electrical energy. year period, alternative load nanagement techniques , and shall to the extent authorized by law require, each electric utility with respect to which it has Sec. 102. Purposes - ratemaking authority to promptly inplement each such technique which the State regulatory (3) To institete rate reform and greater use authority determines is cost-effective. - of load management techniques. in order to prevent or minimize increases in rates Sec. 205. Determination of Cost of Service of electric. energy, and to assure that the actual costs of generating and trans-mitting cicetric energy are equitably Sec. 206. Application of Standards to Utilities Not subject to State Regulatory Authorities. distributed among all consur.cr classes. - Title II. Utility Rate Reform Sec. 207. (a)(1) Any electric consumer or State agency may intervene
- as of right as a party in any evidentiary hearing or other Sec. 202. Coverage proceeding of a State regulatory authority or covered public system which affects such consumer's or State This title applies only !? sales of electric agency's interest, to the extent that such hearing or energy for purposes other thcn resale by an proceeding relates to the determination of compliance with the requirements of this title.
electric utility, and applica to such an electric utility in any calendar year only if sales of Sec. 209. Enforcement electric energy by such utility for purposes other than recale during the second preceding calendar year exceeded two hundred million , . kilowatt-hours. ' O e oe
, p ., v'
*M'>* ?" "" '
S iii :
- -u: .o , , . 4 ___
H.R.6009 @ HICHLICHTS OF H.R.6009 LIFELINE AND ELECTRIC RATE REFORM ACT OF 1977 Title I. Ceneral Provisions . Title II. Definitions Sec. 102. Purposes Sec. 202. Coverage (3) To institute rate reform and greater It is declared that the business of producing, supplying, use of load management techniques, in and transmitting, and of distributing and selling elec-order to prevent or minimize increases trie energy to other than ultimate consumers by local in rates of electric energy, and to distributors in areas where proper regulation thereof is
- assure that the rates to be charged for provided under authority of State governments, are electric energy'are more equitable as businesses concerning an essential resource of the between all consumer classes; Nation which said businesses are affected with a public interest and which affect interstate commerce, no natter, (4) To require that all rates and elezants where said electric energy plant and/or generating thereof which are approved by regulatory facility may be located in the Nation, and that Federal authorities shall iaelude all costs to regulation in matters relating to such production. . .
the utilities, including fuel costs, so supplying and transmission, and to the distribution and
!,! !- that r.o electric utility can pass on to sale of electric energy. wherever located in the fifty any consumer any cost item which has not states, the District of Columbia, er any organized ~
received the approval of an appropriate territory of the United States, is necessary in the-regulatory agcncy having jurisdiction to public interest except sales to ultimate consumers by establish and adjust rates; local distributors in areas where proper regulation as - prescribed herein by the Federal Commission, including (5) To establish National Mininus Senndards the Tennessee Valley Authority and any other Federally for electric racemaking in order to owned agency and their several distributors which assure thht States which implement rate produce and/or sell electric energy. reforms are not placed at a competitive economic disadvantage by reason of the Title III. E1cetric Energy Office failure of other States to implement such reforms: Sec. 301. There is hereby created within the Federal Power Con-mission or within any successor department or agency (8) To create within the Federal Power Com- established by law to carry out the functions of the nission. or within any successor department said Commission, an Electric Energy Office... or agency established by law to carry out * '
- - the functions thereof, an Electric Energy ,,
'+
Office, the organization and duties of said . Office to be, set forth within thirty dsys ,;. of enactment of this Act by the President F in an Executive order. ey;- m.v,N==--*g'=-p=* e4 -
*'M***F,, ** e- , *; we;< r: -
N!!! bb0i _ <c . ._ .* .m , , . . .. . . . . .. 4 4 . . - -a . . 4 ,,, .,. . . 4 . =t - n_
n.n.vuus ~~'% Pag 2 2 Il!C!!LICffTS OF - H.R.6009 (Cunt'd) LIFELINE AND ELECTRIC RATE REFORM ACT OF 1977 Sec. 302. Disclosure Title IV. Rate Structures Every electric utility and local distributor Title V. Lifeline Electric Rate shall be required to furnir;h monthly reports to the Electric Energy Office of the Com- Sec. 501. Within ninety days af ter the effective date of this Act, mission, which reports shall show the classes cach electric utility and/or local distributor of of consumers supplied by such utility or electricity shall provide for a rate under which the - distributor, the amount of electric energy charge per kilowatt-hour at any time or period of use produced, suppiled, transmitted, distributed. (including any customer charges) to a residential elec-or sold to each class of consue.er during said tric consumer for a subsistence quantity of electric month, the charge per kilowatt-hour in ecch energy in any month (or applicable billing period) for
- period of use for each class nf consumer such consumer's principal place of residence does not (including any customer charges), the type of exceed the lowest rate charged per kilowatt-hour during fuel used by such utility of distributor of such period of use to any other electric consumer to said fuel or electric energy purchased and whom electric energy is sold by such electric utility ,
used. or local distributor. This provision shall apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority and/or all other The willful failure by any person, electric Federally owned agencies engaged in the generation. . utility, or local distributor in good faith to sale and distribution of electric energy, and to all furnish the inforcation required by this section of their scaeral local distributors. chall be punishable by civil and/cr crimlnsi penalties of not to exceed $100,000 or by Title VI. Electric Rates for Nonresidential Customers imprisonment for a term not to exceed oso yeer,
, or both. Sec. 602. It shall be unlawful for such electric utility or dis-tributor to provide any quantity discounts, or block or Sec. 303. The said Electric Energy office shJll promulgate declining block rates to any nonresid(ntial customer, or National Minimum Standards for Rateaaking in to establish any rate schedules or tariffs which would accordance with the purpose of this Act, and be the name as a charge at a lower rate for a higher con-said Standards shall be binding oa oll Staca aumption of electric energy, it being the intent and cocmissions and regulatory agencies capowered purposo'of Congress to encourage the conservation of to establish rates for the sale of electric energy. electric energy and to discourage the wasteful use of electric energy.
1 1 l l l r S
;ge n ^ * - * * ****==***e-** * * * 'e - * * * * * * - w-* q **t=r*-* = g reg ; , ee +g----S e
I . l 0 t~ 6 L:. t::
*!:^*es b.[c::
t a t b 4 e LD cc J Z L&J 4 4 8
*a e e 8
' t f
S.iuut .m - .
\'
!!ICHLICllTS OF s 5.1007 alternative stratentes for meetinn anticipated Sze.101. (a) There is herchy established a rational United States energy requirements, consistent-Conmission on Energy po1 Icy (the "Com- with achieving other national goals includity ,
mission") which shall pursuant to sec- national security and envitonmental protection; tion 103, make a full and couplete analysis of national policies affecting existing and prospective governmental policies energy resources, including the conservation, and laws affecting the fuels and energy production, transportation, and utilization industries with the view of determining what. of such resources, in the Ur.ited Ststes, if any, changes in and impicmentation of such ,
~ policies and laws may be advisable in order to Such Commission shall include four State consolidate, coordinate, and provide an effective Covernors, who may designate the chief end equitable national energy policy.
administrative officer of the State's air pollution control agency. . Sze. 102. (a) Duties of the Commission . Sec. 107 There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for - use by the Commission in carrying out the purpose of' The Coemission shall make a full and complete this Act not to exceed $17.000.000. investigation and study of the alternative national energy and fuels policies available to the United States to acet the Nacien's energy requirements consistent with national policies for the protection and tahancement , of the quality of the environment and forIn economic recovery and full ceployment.
- particular the Cummission shall evaluate -- -
current and prospective energy resource production, transportaticn. conversion, and utilization requirements. including coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear and renewable resources (including but not limited to, solar and geothermal energy); -
., ,eO.
* *v .
de
. r I
e l
* * * *; 7" y , ,, - m m'7 ; m. ,
7 7~ (NU f: N!d x - :
!b
~
.m O
- "U S.1363 ~ 'i$
hor.6601 IIICitLICllTS OF S.1363 H.R.6661 COCD(ERATION AND WASTE HEAT UTILIZiTION ACT li . Title I Waste Heat Energy Recovery Policy Analysis Report. Prepared in consultation with the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission. Part 2 Sec. 101 shall analyze the interrelationship between increased competition in the electric utility industry and the (a) The Administrator of the Federal Energy objective of promoting the recovery of waste heat - Administration (hereinafter referred to in this energy ai.d the development of dual purpose power plants. n; Act as the " Administrator") ir authoeired and Part 2 of the Final Report shall include a thorough directed to conduct. In consultation with the examination and assessment of at least: Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal i Trade Commission. and other appropriate ageocies. (1) apprepriate ownership arrangements for equipment, a full and complete analysis of the economic. transmission lines, and energy required or' social. environmental and technalogical feasi- created by application of cogeneration or vaste bility and consequences of impicmenting, on a heat recovery techniquesi , , nationwide scale, various waste heat energy recovery and use techniques. Ti-o policy (2) the feasibility and consequences, from a regulatory. ' analysis shall focus primarily on industrial economic and technological standpoint, of separate site snd utility site dual purpose power plant evnersh;p and operation of facilities for generating, systems, and shall include the development and transmitting, and distributing electric energy, and application of industry-by-industry surveys of means to promote such separate ownership and existing and projected patterne of eteam or heat operations energy generation. according to accam pressure, q, oize of insta,11stion. load curve characterietics (d) Part 3. Proposals for Covernmental Action and other appropriate criteria, to ascertain the national potentini for recovering and using waste Title II Interim Ic.centives for Industrial Conencration heat energy and f or the develorment of industrial , and utility site dual purpose power plants. Sec. 201. Investment Tax Credit Amendments Relating to Certala I (c) Part 2: Competition in the Electric utility Industry. At or before the expiration of the eighteen-month Sec. 202 Utility Incentive period following the enactment' of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Congress and to .
- - the President Part 2 of the Policy Analysis Final ,
M
= 4* ;
**9 a ] ** == -' 7 j p == y* *-=y, 3
- :; _a n:_1 .,-__C _
, , , , m . 4 _ . - , , - l_ o c..u- _ _. ,. _ . . ,
e.s,.s "TW H.R.6661
. . .~* Pig,2 HICl!LICitTS OF S.1363 H.R.6661 ill C003ERATION AND WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION ACT Sic. 205. Financial Assistance to State Regulatory Authorities *
(a) The Administrator is authorized to make monetary grants to State utility regulatory authorities,
- on an interim basis, for the specific purpose of assisting such authorities in efforts to:
(1) facilitate the recovery and use of vaste , heat energy;
~
(2) promote the exchange of electric power between industrial site dual purpose power ,. , plants and electric utilitics at reasonable rates; (3) encourage electric utilities to transmit ' electric energy, and provide transmission services or wheeling, to industrial site , dual purpose power plants at reasonable rates. , (e) There is authorized to be appropriated under this section a sum not to exceed $20.000,000
$ in grants during any fiscal year. Such grants shall be allocated by the Administrator among the various States on an equitable basis, taking into coesideration such objective criteria as population and existing energy deficiencies.
m e O
- * * - &e***-4m.+- .. ,# , , ,
~' '
TT. ;;T i! .:pT'pT p's;
!Ijli :...
~
, ,.u. , , _ _ i! ! ,, , , , , , ____-_-
i ( I H.R.5852_ O
, , . 's ~
HICULICHTS OF H.R.5862-c.-. COLtBtBIA DASIN ENERGY CORPORATION ACT OF 1977 m: The Bcard shall give notice of each public hearing Sec. 3. Purpcse in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality where the hearing is to be held at least one month (1) Maintaining and operating the properties owned by the United States and used for the Prior to the scheduled hearing date. . For the generation of electric energy in the Pacific Purpose of such hearing, the Board may administer oaths. subpoena witnesses, or written or printed Northwest; materials, compel attendance of witnesses, or (3) maxinizing the potential of the untano feature Production of naterials, and take evidence including ,' of the Pacific Northwest water and power but not limited to site inspections of the land to be affected. A verbatim transcript and complete system which provides massive and controllable record of each public hearing shall be ordered by storage of electric encrey in the form of water behind its dams and in its reservoirs the Board. , by storing excess power coming from the sun. the sind, nuclear and fossil. fuels in the Sec. & Distribution u? Electricity; Preference to Public Bodies and Cooperatives form of water to be used when demand is - critical. Sec. 9 Limitation of Sale. Delivery, and Exchange of Electric Sec. 6. Corponte Power, Energy and Electric Peaking Capacity for Use Outside Pacific Northwest
.. Sec. 7. Board Duties and Powers At least thirty days prior to the execution of any con-
!!l.
(k) The Board is directed to hold public hearings tract for the cale. delivery, or exchange of surplus
' prior to making a Soard decision regarding energy or surplus peaking capacity for use outside the
- Pacific Northwest, the Secretary shad 31' ve the then t
i! !i
- (1) The construction of generating facilities customers of the Cr potation written notice that negotiations for such a contract are pending. and by the Corporation or approw d of generating f acilities to be constructed thereafter, at any customer's request, make available by a cooperating utility costing more for its inspection current drafts of the proposed than $100,000. Such hearings shall be contract.
held in the city of rho central office of the Corporation and in the largest city of See. 10 Contract Terms and conditions for Use of P.lectric Energy the county in which the facility is to be Outside Pacific Northwest constructed. . e 4
,p.
t
; i::
c!:' .
?
- 7+., .--* .
' T '*** * ' * {T} } *
' 9 j;"
~
GH .m. M .__n _: _ EiFi a
70
- "*
- H.R.5862 Jr
" Pcgn 2 i HIC 11LICIITS OF E.R.5862 l
s CCLWBIA BASIN ENERGY CORPORATION ACT OF 1977 . I i Sec. 13. Transmission Lines for Other Electric Energy; Rates Sse. 15. Transmission Lines Between Pacific Northwest and Facific Southwest . No electric transmission lines or related facilities shall be constructed by sny federal agency outside the Pacific Parthwest for the purpose of transmitting cicctric energy between ' the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest, nor shall any arrangement for transmission capacity be executed by any federal agency for the purpose of , financing such lines and related facilities to be constructed by non-federal entitica. except those
- .;j lines and facilities recommended for federal construction in the Report of the Secretary of the Interior submitted to Congress on June. 24, 1964. as supplemented en July 27.1954, or as hereafter specifically authorized by Congress. .
Sec. 17. Contracts for Sale of Electricity
~ .
Sec. 20 Rate Schedules Sec. 22 rund , Sec. 23 Investment of Excess runds e Sec. 24 Bonds
!~ .
r
+
N kk e- e*< y e"M*-M+- I 1 77* Iy , _
.i!
- - - -- w .. _
- . .- e a . ,.
.-.~.:-.
(; , NRC HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESS [i. D 5 l
- [f .
2/S/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY and COMMITTEE ON GOVEMMENT s OPERATIONS (SENATE) - Joint Hearing NRC ACTION REQUIRING SAFETY INSPECTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN SHUTDOWN OF CERTAIN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NRC Witnesses: Chairman William A. Anders Comissioner Marcus A. Rowden Comissioner Edward A. Mason Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Comissioner Richard T. Kennedy < , Herbert Kouts, Director, Office of Nuclear i= Regulatory Research (RES) h . Edson Case, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Donald Knuth, Director, Office of Inspection - and Enforcement (IE) Frank Schroeder, Acting Director, Division of Technichl Review (DTR) e Victor Stello, Assistant Director for Reactor l Safety, DTR : Raymond Maccary, Assistant Director for Engineering, DTR Muzaffer Kehnemuyi, Head, Special Study Group on a BWR Piping, DTR
- Stephen Hanauer, Technical Advisor to Executive ,
Director for Operations Karl Seyfrit, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch, Office of Assistant Director for Construction and Operation' IE !: Howard Shapar, Acting General Counsel i. Edwin G. Triner, Acting Director, Office of Planning and Analysis [ 2/20/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY Subcommittee on Legislation NRC FY 1975 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION . . . NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders r;; =l Commissioner Mason E~ a Mr. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations (EDO) a *
(? - 2 - 3/5/75 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Public Works NRC FY 1975 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 5 NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders 2 b Commissioner Rowden - Commissioner Mason Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Mr. Gossick, E00 3/19/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY . Subcommittee on Legislation , L-NRC AUTHORI'ZATION FOR FY 1976 AND TRANSITION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders O Mr. Gossick, EDO 4/21/75 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Public Works NRC APPROPRIATIONS FY 1976 AND TRANSITION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Mr. Gossick, E00 1 I' 4/22/75 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (SENATE) Subcorrmittee.on Public Works NRC APPROPRIATIONS FY 1976 AND TRANSITION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Mr. Gossick, E00 4/24/75 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (SENATE) EXPORT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1975 (S.1439) NRC Witnesses: H.J. Larson, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) R.G. Page, Deputy Director, Division of Safeguards, NMSS COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) L 4/28/75 Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT: OVERVIEW 0F MAJOR NUCLEAR ENERGY ISSUES NRC Witness: Chairman Anders - p v ( I , I
- 3 -
e
..J 4/29/75 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUT.E)
Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment , NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT: REACTOR SAFETY - NRC Witness: Dr. Kouts, Director, RES
=
H 4/30/75 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (SENATE) EXPORT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1975 (S.1439) ...l X. NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Comissioner Richard T. Kennedy ;
.i c.
5/2/75 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE)
~',, '
Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT: SAFEGUARDING NUCLEAR MATERIALS NRC Witness: Comissioner Victor Gilinsky . 6/25/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY SITING AND LICENSING LEGISLATION (S.1717; H.R. 7002) NRC Witnesses: Comissioner Rowden Comissioner Mason pi Comissioner Kennedy r
!=
Mr. Gossick, EDO
'Edson Case, Acting Director, NRR 1 in:
T. N-s
- i.:.
U 1 1 l s [- l
. - - . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +
d :; NRC HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESS
- @T..:
R E 7/22/75 COMMITTEE ON. INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) ' fk~ Subcomittee' on Energy and the Environment ls
~
NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT: NUCLEAR EXPORT LICENSING NRC Witness: Comissioner Victor Gilinsky 7/29/75 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (SENATE) Subcomittee on Public Works - NRC FY 1976 APPROPRIATIONS (INCLUDING TRANSITION PERIOD) . F NRC Witnesses: Chairman William A. Anders Lee Gossick, Executive Director for Operations (EDO) 9/16/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY BROWNS FERRY INVESTIGATION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders P Commissioner Edward A. Mason
~
Donald Knuth, Director, Office of Inspection (; and Cnforcement (IE) Benard Rusche, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Stephen H. Hanauer, Technical Advisor to the . Executive Director for Operations and Chair-man, Special Review Group 9/23/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY Subcomittee on Legislation i: PRICE-ANDERSON ACT EXTENSION (H.R. 8631) NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Comissioner Marcus A. Rowden j' Peter Strauss, General Counsel : Jerome Saltzman, Chief, Antitrust and. Indemnity I Group, NRR , r ; COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (HOUSE) y 10/30/75 Subcomittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs , H a INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS ON NUCLEAR MATERIALS NRC Witness: Comissioner Richard T. Kennedy
.)
i t.: - i j
- 2 -
0 . 11/19/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY c. NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT I NRC Witness: Kenneth Chapman, Director, Office of Nuclear g ..a
~
Materials Safety.and Safeguards (NMSS) r R n= 12/2/75 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY ,_ NUCLEAR FUEL ASSURANCE ACT (S. 2035, H.R. 8401) .E NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders k Mr. Chapnan, Director, NMSS []l . 1/29/76 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (SENATE) ' 1/30/76 REVISED EXPORT REORGANIZATION ACT (S.1439)
'i NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders <
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy 2/4/76 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (SENATE) Subcomnittee on Antitrust and Monopoly ANTITRUST REVIEW FUNCTIONS OF NRC NRC Witness: Mr. Saltzman, Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Gro0p, NRR 2/17/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY NRC FY 1977 AUTHORIIATION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Mr. Gossick, EDO Mr. Rusche, Director, NRR Herbert'Koutt, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Mr. Hanauer, Technical Advisor to EDO Robert Friedman, Controller 2/18/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY p 2/23/76 INVESTIGATION OF CHARGES RELATING TO REACTOR SAFETY 2/24/76 NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Commissioner Mason [C 3/2/76 3/4/76 Dade Moeller, Chairman, Advisory Committee - on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Mr. Strauss, General Counsel
- Commissioner Rowden .
Commissioner Kennedy t .. Commissioner Gilinsky f
~ . - -
g; _ 3 _ f7 , l.? sj ; r Mr. Rusche, Director, NRR h.5 m Victor Stello, Director, Division of d Operating Reactors, NRR $ Robert Minogue, Director Office of t
- Standards Development (SD)
Thomas Engelhardt, Deputy Executive Legal :1_ Director (DeputyELD) &[m = D.B. Vassallo, Chief, Light Water Reactor Projects Branch #5, NRR James Yore, Acting Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLB hnel) ii Alan Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and + Licensing Appeal Board Panel (ASLAB Panel) John Buck, Vice Chairman, ASLAB Panel 2/26/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE)
- Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment DOMESTIC NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS NRC Witness: Mr. Chapman, Director, NMSS .
3/9/76 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRI ATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Public Works NRC APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1977
.NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders Mr. Gossick, ED0 NRC Senior Staff 3/11/76 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (SENATE)
Subcommittee on Public Works NRC APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1977 NRC Witnesses: Chairman Anders , Mr. Gossick, E00 NRC Senior Staff 3/12/76 CCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy and Natural Resources LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE s NRC Witness: Richard Cunningham, Acting Director, Division 1 of ' Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS - q
-- e
. . 4 .
(p; . = 3 3/19/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY 5 NRC FY 1977 AUTHORIZATION (SAFEGUARDS) N NRC Witness: Mr. Chapman, Director, NMSS 5/3/76 COMMITTEE ON' THE JUDICIARY (HOUSE} Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure ~ ' ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM NRC Witness: Mr. Strauss, General Counsel } 5/12/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY Subcommittee on Environment and Safety p NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT NRC Witnesses: Chaiman Rowden p -- William Bishop, Chief, Waste Management Branch, NMSS ~. .; Richard Cunningham, Acting Director, Division ' of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS . Mr. Strauss, General Counsel , r 5/25/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on International Resources, Food and Energy . PROPOSED EXPORT OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS TO SOUTH AFRICA NRC Witness: Wayne Kerr, Chief, Agreements and Exports Branch, HMSS n 5/27/76 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (SENATE) Subcommittee on African Affairs PROPOSED EXP0RT OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS TO SOUTH AFRICA NRC Witness:- Wayne Kerr, Chief, Agreements and Exports Branch, HMSS 6/7/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION (EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENTS) NRC Witness: Comissioner Gilinsky 6/11/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Energy REACTOR SAFETY STUDY (and REPORT) RASMUSSEN the Environment . NRC Witness: Saul Levine, Deputy Director, RES g g L. o se
s-C . 6/22/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY EXPORT REORGANIZATION ACT (S.1439) HRC Witnesses: Chairman Rowden v= Commissioner Mason Commissioner Gilinsky ,, Commissioner Kennedy I COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) 7/27/76 Subcommittee on Energy and the Enviror. ment
. RADIOLOGICALCONTAMINATIONOFTHEOCEANS(FLOATINGNUCLEAR POWERPLANTS) *; NRC Witness: Harold Denton, Director, Division of Si,te Safety and Environmental Analysis, NRR 7/28/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY EXPORT REORGANIZATION ACT (S.1439) n NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden (Accom , nied~ by Commissioners Kennedy and Gilinsky 8/27/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY IMPACT ON REACTOR LICENSING OF TWO COURT DECISIONS RELATED TO BACKEND OF FUEL CYCLE NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden 8/ 31/76 JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY PROPOSED NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE PROLIFERATION CONTROL ACT OF 1976 NRC Witness: Chairman Rowc'en 9/17/76 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (HOUSE)
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy and Natural Resources IMPACT ON REACTOR LICENSING OF TWO COURT DECISIONS RELATED TO BACKEND OF FUEL CYCLE NRC Witness: Mr. Strauss, General Counsel 9/20/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment GESMO DECISION-RAKING PROCESS NRC Witness: Mr. Strauss, General Counsel I - i f f
. . - ~
6 - .+.:.
..=
(:;:; .
+
kh:;: A
~'
9/28/76 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS - Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment .
- E PUBLIC FUNDING OF INTERVENORS IN NRC GESMO PROCEEDING
- a NRC Witness
- Chairman Rowden .
lg =M ra [:- f.?: p. f i; 4 h,2; ..,I l
- . l
.1
. 5
. i:n ab. :.
I, p .:1 g ( h
, h
,c-
1 ,
*~ ~
" ' "' :.::g..
i n(W
. ..e E=: b NRC HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESS h.. '
!?
12/13/75 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMEWT OPERATIONS (SENATE) .}:n):.
.:.:.33 ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION OF DISSIDENT STAFF VIEWS IN .
NRC LICENSING REVIEWS NRC Witnesses: Chairman Marcus A. Rowden . Office of Nuclear E; . Benard Rusche, Reactor RegulationDirector (NRR) [.[.
)w 2/17/77 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) .
fi 2/18/77 Subcommittee.on Energy and the Environment ' O NRC FY 1978 AUTHORIZATION
- NRC Witnesses: Chairman Rowden Lee Gossick, Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
HRC Senior Staff ,
$+ 3/8/77 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (HOUSE) ,~
Subcommittee on Public Works - NRC FY 1978 APPROPRIATIONS NRC Witnesses: Chairnian Rowden Mr. Gossick, EDO : NRC Senior Staff 3/8/77 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Energy Environment and Natural Resources WEST VALLEY FUEL REPROCESSING FACILITY : NRC Witness: Clifford Smith, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle :=t and Material Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) 3/10/77 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS (SENATE) OVERVIEW 0F NRC BUDGET ' NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden 3/30/77 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Govec.1 mental Relations ~~~z.m PUBLIC FUNDING OF INTERVENORS IN FEDERAL AGENCY PROCEEDINGS NRC Witness: Peter Strauss, General Counsel - is ([ m u s
, -?
- -- - ::=
.- j
' ' ~ N
- 2 -
(;._ +:
- .f ih M:: -
ee i=F 3/30/77 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS (SENATE) 4/1/77 Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation 4/4/77 NRC FY 1978 AUTHORIZATION " NRC Witnesses: Mr. Gossick, EDO ' Mr. Strauss, General Counsel NRC Senior Staff .
, 4/8/77 TCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (SENATE)
NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL ENERGY REORGANIZATION
- . . ; NRC Witness
- Dr. Smith, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle
~
and Material Scfety, NMSS 9 4/21/77 COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION (HOUSE) Subcommittee on Investigations and Review NRC INTERFACE WITH EPA IN IMPLEMENTATION OF CLEAN WATER ACT NRC Witnesses: Edson Case, Acting Director, NRR , Harold Denton, Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, NRR Richard Browne, Attorney, Office of Executive Legal Director 4/29/77 COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE (HOUSE) 5/2/77 Subcommittee on Energy and Power NRC FY 1973 AUTHORIZATION NRC Witnesses: Chairman Rowden Mr. Gossick, ED0 NRC Senior Staff 5/5/77 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATILNS (SENATE) Subcommittee on Public Works NRC FY 1978 APPROPRIATIONS NRC hitnesses: Chairman Rowden Mr. Gossick, EDO NRC Senior Staff 5 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (SENATE)
!= $
5/6/77 i; Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and. Federal . 5 Services c t NUCLEAR .'ROLIFEP,ATION LEGISLATION H l
"NRC Witnesses: Chainnan Rowden Comissionen Kennedy l
t
,e ,
- 3 -
L.
.T 5/16/77 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT NRC Witness: Dr. Clifford Smith, Director, HMSS .ij 5/19/77 COMMITTEEONINTERSTATEANDFOREIGNCOMMERCE(HOUSE)
Subcomittee on . Energy and Power STATUS OF NUCLEAR PLANTS / LICENSING PROCESS NRC Witness: Edson Case, Acting Director, NRC 5/23/77 COMMITTEEONFOREIGNRELATIONS(SENATE) e h Subcommittee on Arms Control, Oceans and the International P Environment NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION LEGISLATION NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden 5/26/77 COMMITTEE ON~ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (HOUSE) y
. Subcommittee on International Security and 4 Scientific Affairs and Subcommittee on Internationei Economic Policy and Trade NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION LEGISLATION NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden 6/9/77 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (HOUSE)
Subcomittee on the Envi .1 ment and the Atmosphere , ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AhD SAFETY ASPECTS OF PRESIDENT'S ENERGY PLAN NRC Witness: Mr. Gossick, EDO 6/13/77 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (SENATE) l Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment d LICENSING REFORM NRC Witness: Chairman Rowden 6/15/77 COMMITTEEONSCIENCEANDTECHG0GY(HOUSE) Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere . . - WEST VALLEY / DECOMMISSIONING COSTS NRC Witness: Richard Cunningham, Acing Director - i"
, t Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS [
( ,:. . i y
- ri .. _ _ _ _
J > b.. . H 6/28/77 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SENATE) E
.[
Subcomittee on Science, Technology and Space -
- RADIATION EXPOSURE HAZARDS NRC Witness: Mr. Gossick, ED0 =
5 k4 6/30/77 COMMITTEE ON ' INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (HOUSE) Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment . DIABLO CANYON STATUS ...=.. NRC Witness: Mr. Case, Acting Director, NRC ,
=..
n O O 9 O 4 be. b rj l s ..
- - l
, ~ . . . ,
l' I y ; p.
'c CJRRENT ISSUES TABLE OF CONIENTS -t=
[p . I.}L =,. p.; ~
-The following items are treated separately because they are issues ;-l=
of particular currency before the Comission, or of significant 5 interest to industry, the Congress, or the general public. llll~ i;;. ,
- 1. Clinch River Breeder Reactor fsr -
??.
- 2. The Price-Anderson Act
- = -
;:::h::: s
' ~ ~ '
- 3. Special Nuclear Material -- Public Reporting of Inventory Differences :
.i=
- 4. Radiography Overexposures
- 5. Increasing Public Participation z. I
.. .1 6 '. Seabrook hbclear Power Plant
- 7. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 44m :
- 8. Conran Allegations Concerning NRC Safeguards
~
- 9. Current Litigation ~ ==
- .3 k'.5 n ::;
b 9 s. [.l e E h S... .7 Y:
.E
,::=
p a
>::i e CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR 'J ,
Overview i;: Before licensing the C] inch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR), the NRC must assure the public that its construction and operation will not cause significant risk to public safety or the environment. Tnerefore:
-- regulatory requirements will have an important influence on the technical features of the engineered safety systems;
-- societal acceptance of the fast breeder reactor technology will hinge largely on ensuring that the risks of an accident and safeguards risks resulting from theft or diversion are as low as reasonably achievable.
ERDA's DIFBR program planning presently includes the CRER demonstration plant and a Prototype Large Breeder (PLBR), to permit gradual extrapolation in size from Fast Flux Test Facility to full-sized DIFBR. The original program was designed to have initial criticality of first commercial breeder reactor (CBR-1) in 1993. R S R is focused to resolve key program elements by 1986 -- before f construction of CBR - 1 begins. Current NRC Involvement The NRC's Final Environmental Statement on CRBR was issued in 'I February 1977, and the Site Suitability Report was issued in ; March 1977. Tne Preliminuy Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) has been under , review by NRC for two years. I L Environmental and site suitability hearings were scheduled to begin in June 1977. Staff had been working in response to intervenor's interrogatories and on testimony for the hearings, but has suspended this effort since the ASLB has suspended the hearing process at the applicant's request until Congress and q the Administration have determined the f~uture of the CRBR ptoject. ERDA has proposed ti sucpend the CRBR project as of July 26th, - 1977, except for CRBR systems design work, in order to preserve e the technological information for possible future use. Some elements of the system design would be applicable to other ? - breeder concepts (i .e. thoriurJ). But these courses of action u
(.7;.-. .. 4?.
'CRBR'--2 IEf
- h. w l?
- are of no relevance to NRC unless the CRBR project is funded by ~.y
.the Congress, E E ,
Congressional budget action thus far has been in opposition to President Carter's request for $33 million for basic systems J design work by ERDA as described above. Both House and Senate .. have included sums for continuance of the project, and are " scheduled to act on the budget authorizations and appropriations following the July 4th recess. Funding for NRC regulatory activities related to CRBR is contingent, in the authorization bill, upon whether the hE - construction is halted or the license application withdrawn. p. p" ~ As for the.- Fast. Flux Test Facility, c1though no fomal " operating license will be issued by the HEC for the FFTF, a safety and environmental review will be perfomed in a , G manner essentially equivalent to that of a commercial - licensing action. The NRC has yet to complet review of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the FFTF; the facility. !? itself is nearly completed and will be operated as part of F
~ ERDA's reactor development program. '
. (ir
;-g :1 v.:.:. ..'
b
\
']
- .1
; ::.1 E :.1 h,i y.... .
\ ).I. 9
.:= v
=.=: =.=: ===- .:==-
L M . ;..- b 'IHE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT tg : m In the mid-1950's, as the civilian nuclear energy industry was developing the first electric power reactors,. Congress passed the kw Price-Anderson Act'
.. l
-- to assure the availability of funds to protect the public
-Q in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident; and h,
-- to remove the threat of unlimited liability as a deterrent M to the emerging nuclear industry. E is
'Ihe Price-Anderson Act provided financial protection for the !..
public in two layers: E. *
-- $140 million through a private insurance pool to which y all utilities operating nuclear power reactors were '
required to subscribe; and
-- an additional $420 million of Federal indemnification ~
for which the utilities pay the government a premium. ' w.. Legislation approved by the 94th Congress modified and extended for an additional ten years (to higust,1987), the Act. 'lhis Q legislation also provided for: ,
~
-- eventual phasecut of government indemnity; -
-- potentially increased limits of liability beyond :
the present $560 million, through a retrospective g. premium plan;
-- the costs of investigation, settlement, and defense []
of claims will not be paid from the indemnity funds (Hathaway Amendment). The foregoing modifications of the Act were designed to address concerns over government " subsidy" of the nuclear industry through the Federal indemnification layer, and questions about the sufficiency of the $560 million limit on liability. The present government indemnity layer of $420 million will ' gradually be reduced over the next several years as a fund m to be financed by retrospective premiums grows. The ~'~ Price-Anderson amendments required NRC to detemine the amount e of the retrospective premium, within the range of $2 to $5 :
~~.
nillion per reactor. . e.... en 1
l fe Price-Anderson - 2 On January 3, 1977, the hRC established that the retrospective premium will be $5 million per reactor. Thus, the government will be phased out of the government indemnification layer when approximately 84 reactors are licensed to operate - projected to be in the mid-1980's. 9 Tne liability limit will continue to increase past the $550 million point as further reactors go into operation. For example, if the Administration's goal of 300 reactors in operation by the year. ' 2000 is met, the liability fund will have increased to $1.5 billion. As for the Hathaway amendment, the hRC staff is presently pursuing how to handle the costs of investigation, settlement, and defense of claims. LRC believes that Price-Anderson coverage plays no significant role in motivating safe design and operation of a nuclear power , plant. But in the case of sabotage or theft, hRC believes this question should be handled separately, pendim.g completion of safeguards studies and hear.ings. Present coverage under the Act is only at a licensed facility (- or along normal transportation routes. Coverage for other events is open. On March 31, 1977, Federal District Court Judge, James McMillan declared the limitation of liability provisions of the Price-Anderson Act to be unconstituticaal and unenforceable. (Carolina Environmental Study Group v. hTC) The Court's op. inion stated that the liability limitation constituted a "taking without just compensation," because of the possibility that canage from a nuclear accident might exceed $560 million. In addition, the Court felt that such a limitation tends to encourage irresponsibility by licensees in safety matters. rne HEC is committed to seeking Supreme Court review of the District Court decision, with oral arguments possible later this year. hRC beHeves that it has an obligation to defend ' its organic statutes from constitutional attack. k l l
*0!.
(A SPECIAL hUCLEAR MATERIAL'-- PUBLIC REPORTING OF IhVENTORY DIFFERENCES NRC and ERDA are preparing reports which provide data and explanations
.for inventory differences
- at facilities possessing significant amounts
, of special' nuclear material (S'N) -- i.e. plutonium, highly enriched ..
i uranium (at least 20 percent U-235), or U-233. It is anticipated .~. = that these reports will be released publicly within the next month.
$p. M Origin of ' Inventory Differences y ~P 6 a Periodic inventories are required at facilities possessing SSI. In I making a physical inventory and comparison with the amount of material
-carried in the accounting records, reliance is placed on measurements.
Even using the most sophisticated instruments, these measurements are-subject to error and thus give rise to differences between physical and book inventories. Two major sources of differences are material hold up in process equipment, and some hard-to-measure scrap materials.
~
Safeguards Significance of Inventory Differences - Periodic inventories are only one mechanism used to deter or detect theft of SSI. Immediate detection of theft is not possible by this accounting procedures because of the time required to make an h, inventory, and the inevitable inventory differences which arise from measurement errors. 3 Tne primary protection of S21 is provided by physical security systems, such as guards, portal monitors, and alamed barriers, aal internal control systems, such as personnel searches and the - two-man rule. Material accounting serves mainly to monitor the . perfomance of the safeguards system as a whole. In this context, NRC considers that analyses of inventory difference data provide a backup to the detection capabilities of the internal contro1~ system. Use of these analyses must be qualified by the fact that small inventory differences are not sufficient proof that no theft or diversion of SMI has occurred. Background on Public Release In late 1974, the New York Times asked the AEC to release inventory ' difference data fcr all licensed nuclear fuel processing facilities. . c.;
- Inventory differences have also been called " material unaccounted for" F (MUF), inventory discrepancies, and book / physical inventory d' -
differences (BPID). ' r, i l
o 8 p . t SV! Inventory Differences - 2 ( d The AEC Comissioners did not honor the requast, but in view of the national security implications, asked the National Security Council he (NSC) for guidance. The NSC decided that a study of this issue was C required, and formed a comittee for this purpose, with NRC and hf _ U-+ ERDA participation. _ In its report (IGSM-216) of April 1975, the Comittee recomended that inventory difference data rare than six months old, and for F g which there was no active investigation undeway, should be released ' to the public. The Comittee recomended all other data be classified. Pending a final decision by the NSC, HEC protected data from disclosure by withholding it as proprietary information. In January 1977, the NSC approved the Committee's recomendations (NSDM-347) . =,,s The program for public release being developed by h2C and ERDA flows directly from the NSC approval. Prior to implementation of . a public release program, releases have recently been made -- ', on a classified basis -- to the GAO, and to Congressman Dingell, , who had a long-standing request for the data. Description of Data to be Released n F The initial release of inventory difference data, planned as issuance within the next month of separate, simultaneous reports by h2C and ERDA, will consist of historical data. Tne data will cover the period from startup of each facility (exclusive of certain data which could provide information concerning weapons program capabilities) through Septerher 1976. NRC and ERDA have agreed,, after discussions with the NSC, on the format for presentation in the initial reports. Basically, the ' body of the report will present FY 76 data, along with explanations of the data and descriptions of facility operations. Data for earlier years will be providei in an appendix, presented on both an ennual and cumulative basis. NRC data will begin with 1968 (when AEC-Ragulatory began collecting such data) and cover , licensed facilities only. Highly enriched uranium data will be reported on a U-235 isotope basis. Prior to release of the initial report, the appropriate congressio .a1 comittees will be briefed an-2 the Department of State will be advised. (The British are also planning a release of inventory difference data for their facilities at about the same time.) " e 1 x i
.Q 2
- y
s
, je:v SMI Inventory Differences.- 3
~
1(; In' the future, reports will be issued anwally, but the format has ... not yet been finally detemined. The staff is comitted. to provide !? further infumation to the Comission well in advance of the future reports. I{ .., . g=: Possible Public Reactions -y g" There has been considerable press attention to this subject in ' anticipation of the data release. NRC has already received a FOIA request. Staff has compiled a set of possible questions and - answers to deal with public reaction to the initial data release. The cumulative figures-for some of the older and larger facilities are large, and will probably generate a..significant public reponse. Anticipated potential reactions include:
'Ik. ."'.
-- stimulation of nuclear hoaxes; p .
-- petitions to close nuclear facilities; [
-- congress'ional hearings; 22
-- FOIA requests for more detailed information; _
ji -
-- accusations that the govemment has " covered up" this infomation; ,
' 7. .
-- questioning the credibility of IAEA safeguards, which are strongly dependent upon material control and accounting;. .fc hl :
-- interpretation of the release by the international community I as a U.S. ploy to, foster the President's non-proliferation program; 5%.. .
-- adverse impacts on the Administration's energy legislation program; j.f. in jJ
-- pressure to release restricted data related to weapons programs.
L. t. en I AN5Ns a
=
n 4
"~$' ...[- .e'
.n = = == .
l t . . . . .. - . - .- . .- - - --
.u .- m _ _- _. s.. m m u a , . - . ~ , . .
e
.y '
- 7. 2:0C RADIOGRAPHY OVEREXPOSURES E ==
.h,;,
.=
r
' Radiography overexposures are a continuing and growing problem.
During 1976 a ntrnber of radiography overexposures fell into the (i : category of and were reported as Ab.iormal Occurrences. i;i. hiss -
'Ihe staff has developed and is implementing an Action Plan hi,..-
to reduce radiography overexposures, s == y Key components of the Action Plan are: development of a training standard for education of radiographers; . assurance of licensee comitment to the training a standalas through amendment of 10 CFR 34 or ' license conditions; , development of perfomance criteria for radiography - devices, utilizing inspection 1.Lndings; use of existing authority to review device designs in tems of the perfonnance criteria;
~,
t development of enforceable radiography safety standards; p : improved requirements for alams and radiation monitoring devices. The Action Plan will be implemented during 197h-78. . . . b.. l - t i
+.
l-H R sq 4.;l (:% [O L:- y:
}:;.
=F :=:.:
- g. ,;;;
j i
*;:.0 il :1?
l += i: INCREASING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 6= ((:2= :m ;:6
=!
The desire for greater public participation in regulatory proceedings is one aspect of the prevalent fervor for regulatory refom. Passage p;::: of the Freedom of Information Act and the Government in the Sunshine ::. Act reflect the Congressional response. In addition to implementing - new procedures under these Acts, the hRC has indicated its own b: commitment to greater public participation in its proceedings through f.J a number of actions. , y;: Freedom of Infomation Act All Federal agencies, including the HEC, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This Act provides that NRC must furnish any' requestor with any hRC document, subject to certain well-delined exemptions. The chief exemptions utilized by the . NRC are: g"
-- Exemption 1, classified infomation.
-- Exemption 4, proprietary information (generally, commercial ~
infomation furnished to NRC by licensees in connection - with the license review process). ~ 1
-- Exemption 5, interagency and intra-agency advice, opinions, (p -
and recomendations, the disclomtre of which 1.ould harm the agency's internal decisionmaking process. h2C also receives requests for documents originating in other agencies, and these requests are generally referred to the originating agency. Government in the Sunshine Act [ _ All agencies headed by a collegial body, the members of which - are appointed by the President, are subject to the Government in the Sunshine Act. This Act requires hRC to open to the public all meetings attended by a quorum of the Co:miission when these meetings " determine or result in the joint conduct of official ; Commission business." ' As with the Freedom of Infomation Act, there are a number of ' specific exemptions available to the Comission, and the chief onas utilized by the HEC are: - E
-- Exemption 1, classified infomation.
Y
'q
- 1
, s
;p.7 L _ _ - - . .
c:= Public participation E-t . b,, B..i. ., Exemption 4, trade secrets and comercial proprietary information. Exemption 6, information of a personal nature, the disclosure [
.of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of E~~
personal privacy.
-- i~a.4 PP-Exemption 9, information of which the premature disclosure would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed Comission action. For example, a Comission y discussion of alternative strategies for pursuing legislation in the Congress - public knowledge of the ; r discussion would make it difficult for the Comission to
- pursue successfully the option selected. However, this exemption does not include discussion of a pmposed rulemaking, i Exemption 10, litigation and adjudicatory matters.
=::.
In addition to the foregoing exemptions which permit the Commission to close a meeting, the Comission's rules provide for two types of gatherings which are not considered " meetings" under the Sunshine Act: gatherings of a social or ceremonial nature, such as 4 luncheons for visiting foreign dignitaries; Comission briefings by representatives of other agencies or by representatives of foreign governments, where such briefings are infomational and are not specifically related to any matter pending before the Comission. E In particular, this exemption covers CIA briefings and general discussions with foreign government officials. Tnere is a specific reason for these two exemptions from the
" meeting" definition. In an exempt meeting, the Comission :
~
'must keep a stenographic record or tape recording, and intelligence briefings or discussions with foreign officials could not be conducted effectively under such circumstances. -
Tne Sunshine Act is a relativaly new statute, and the Commission's interpretations of the exemptions and of iht meeting definition , have not been tested in the courts. ' r s t 4 I r 1 i E
~
.'. ?
I. :.... . . . . . . . l l."l.' ( H L i
'l Public participation - 3 .b Intervenor Funding In view of the often-extensive costs associated with participation in an NRC proceeding, there has been considerable public and congressional discussion of providing funding to intervenors where such funding would assist them to contribute to the record. ,-
- i Following extensive rulemaking on the question of intervenor funding, the NRC issued a policy statement on November 12, 1976, which denied funding of participants in NRC's regular licensing and rulemaking proceedings. The Comatission's decision was based on its fi4tdings that the funding of participants in government proceedings was a social policy question, and that a non-elected regulatory connission should not expend public funds to support private viewpoints without specific congressional authorization.
=b The Commission did, however, indicate its support for funding ' '
S intervenors in the GESMO proceeding, on the grounds that this wns a rulemaling of singular importance. a Commissioner Victor Gilinsky dissented in part from the November 12 decision. He supported funding in the GES'O ( proceeding, but he also felt that Congress should create a broad funding program for the whole range of NRC's activities. Following the November decision, NRC submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, and subsequently, the Congress, a request for $200,000 for intervenor unding f in the GES50 proceeding. In v.iew of the President's April policy statement concerning deferral of plutonium recycle, and the subsequent 9 suspension of the GESMO H, S 4 E hearings, the Congress refused to authorize the intervenor funding for FY 78.
'?
Public Involvement In order to facilitate greater public participation in the licensing process, NRC published amendments to its ntles of q practice in the Federal Register on May 2,1977. The proposed rules include: s D '
-- an extension of the time provided for intervenors to define issues for consideration; -
-- provision fo'r lanited appearances at pre-hearing conferences; a
~ ::.0
.h. :
- \
d y u. ___o
1 r.:r5: Public participation - 4' ; f...
.(& ,
GT ,
~ provision for amending and clarifying issues for coordination; 's" i
.Yb:'.
-- provision.for intervention by non-participants before an .
Appeal Board or the Comission as "a friend of the court." ":
- =u Imoroved Coordination with States, Counties, and Mmicipalities In order to facilitate increased participation by States, counties, 6 and municipalities in NRC licensing proceedings, NRC published
~
amendments to its rules of practice in the' Federal Register on ' 5 May 2, 1977. pi. e=- The proposed rules grant to interested coteties and municipalities - the right that States now have to participate in licensing hearings without taking a stand on issues. Tne proposed rules also grant NRC licensing boards the authority ; ~ to hold joint public hearings with States and other Federal agencies on matters of concurrent jurisdiction. , O t U' 5 s'
?
I .f i s
} 1.;':
? =. .=. . -
4 g' (" ,.... j E l' , I ! l 1 , y
=,: :: n
. ,,= enr
. . , , . . _.t=
}
W" (p ' SFABROOK p t O 6 The Public Service Company of New Hangshire applied to NRC for a ' license to construct a two-unit nuclear power plant near the New Hanshire scacoast town of Seabrook. The CP application was submitted in March 1973 and docketed in July 1973. ASLB hearings held from May through November of 1975 aired a broad range of issues, including eight categories of issues under the Atomic Energy Act and sixteen under NEPA. A total of 61 hearing days were involved, including a reopening of the record in February 1976 on certain seismic issues. The ASLB authorized issuance of the construction permits in June 1976, and NRC issued them in July 1976. The cps were conditioned on EPA approval of the cooling system to be used at the Seabrook facility. The CP was acceptable as long as once-through cooling was used, but the CP would be withdrawn if closed-cycle cooling were used or if EPA required it. - The EPA Regional Administrator had issued a preliminary determination on June 24, 1976, that the once-through cooling system was acceptable, but that further determinations would have to be made on the exact location of the intake and discharge facilities, i: Tne ASLAB twice denied intervenor requests for stays of ' construction (AL\B-338 and ALAB-356). In November 1976, months after the Licensing Board's initial decision, and commencement of construction by the utility, the EPA Regional Administrator vacated his earlier determination = concerning the cooling system, stating that the applicant had not satisfactorily proven that once-through cooling was environmentally acceptable. On January 21, 1977, the Appeal Board decided (ALAB-366) that the construction permits should be suspended, given the uncertainty of EPA approval of the cooling system. The Commission reviewed the Appeal Board detemination, and l rendered its own Opinion on March 31, 1977. The Opinion held 9 basically that: '
]
-- The case warranted Comnission consideration, and was apr ropriately before it.
-- The Appeal Board's basic decisions were correct, and that the cps should be suspended in light of the EPA's uncertainty, the contention that the Seabrook C
!si :
L W , 1 . . L
- g. Seabrook. '2
^
1 site was unacceptable for closed-cycle cooling, and , - the requirement that any analysis of Seabrook with !9 : closed-cycle cooling must include a comparison with i alternative sites. l
-- The Licensing Board requirement for the additional '
site comparison was warranted, and that this comparison should include a cost / benefit analysis -- i.e. the- .z.; n comparison between Seabrook and any alternative site i should reflect the actual cost and time necessary to complete a facility at each of the locations under F consideration. , 1
-- There were certain circumstances under which construction -
could resume:
-- If Seabrook were found acceptable for closed-cycle '
cooling, when compared with other sites, then . construction could resume on all portions of the facility except the cooling system.
-- If EPA were to approve once-through cooling for 7 D'E Seabrook, then construction could proceed, t=
conditioned on the resolution of the other issues ' remaining before the Licensing Board (e.g. seismicity, waste management). - In June 1977, the EPA Administrator approved once-through~ cooling for the Seabrook site. . The applicants have filed simultaneously with the Commission, the Licensing Board, and the Apgal Board a request that the construction perait suspension be lifted. The original Appeal Board suspension was affilmed by the Commission, and therefore the Appeal Board is the proper forum for considering a the request, and the Co=aission has so ordered. , t S N::: c p t 4
- m
-gy p -
& DIAE0 CANYON $
. . V.t L g Diablo Canyon is a tw-unit ndhlear power plant which is being constructed bv the Pacific Gas and EIUCIrie-Ccapany in San Luis Obispo County, California. Unit 1 is complete; Unit 2 is -"* ; approxi nately 90 percent complete, and construction is supposed . to be completed by December of this year. - The construction pemit for Unit 1 was issued in June 1968; the CP for Unit 2 was issued in December 1970. i:: In January 1971, geologists surveying the coastline published a ~ s
- description of the Hosgri fault, which lies about three and a half udic:: offshore from the Diablo Canyon site. Evaluation b of this fault and the associated seismic design questions have been the pacing items in the operating license review.
The operating license application for Units 1 and 2 was submitted in July 1973, and noted the existence of the fault. - The hRC staff requested additional infomation from the ,' applicant to enable evaluation of its impact on the plant. In November 1973 the U.S. Geologi cal Survey (USGS) independently discovered evidence that the fault was somewhat closer to the ' plant than previously understood. This discovery was made as 67 a result of offshore geophysical surveys funded by the NRC. Following extensive studies by the applicant and the USGS, ' the NRC staff completed their evaluation of the fault. Tne USGS concluded that the original seismic design basis was p' inadequate and recommended certain earthquake parameters to ' be used in deriving a new design basis. Tne NRC staff provided further ground motion values and other criteria to be = used in reanalyzing the plant to determine what modifications may be required. - n. The ACRS is presently reviewing the proposed design basis for Diablo Canyon, and the applicant is proceeding with a reanalysis of the plant based on the criteria set forth by the h2C staff. There are other safety issues outstanding in the Diablo Car./on ' review, but these do not present unique or unusual problems and the NRC staff expects that they will be resolved by the time the earthquake safety questions are answered. - M L
...e,
1 t.. ii .. p=c . "; , _g Diablo Canyon - 2 V;: g There has been considerable public interest in Diablo Canyon, and several public hearings have already been held during the
. operating license review: 5 5 :;,e m
-- 1973-74, environmental impacts of the. construction 1 rmit "~
review (cf. Calvert Cliffs decision). The cps were Lpheld. ..
-- December 1975, the limited safety question of whether or.
not new, unirradiated nuclear fuel could be stored at the plant site. Licenses to store the fuel were approved.
-- December 1976, the environmental aspects of the operating
- license review. These hearings will be reconvened in the future to consider the safety aspects of the operating license review.
(In addition, the House Committee on Energy and the Environment , convened hearings on Diablo Canyon on June 30, 1977.) -' 4 ([: 4
- 7:,:
r, 7 I)
.[ a G~ ~
1 6 5 seeu e- *****-
=. ry vvvw' w -w r -e - w
, . . . . - - - - . _~.
*Y,YS d
(bl CONRAN' A11EGATIONS CONCERNING INSUFFICIENCY OF NRC SAFEGUARDS REQUIRE ;' i.\ Mr. James H. Conran, on the staff of NRC's Office of Special Studies, 5 made certain public allegations concerning the adequacy of the [j) y NRC's safeguards programs. if In response, the NRC established a special task force, chaired by k - 9: , Dr. Roger J. Mattson, who is Director of the Division of Siting, s
- Health, and Safeguards Standards in the NRC Office of Standards o Development. ,
'lhe task : force carefully examined each of Mr. Conran's concerns and concluded that, while certain of his views had technical merit, 4= '
it did-not agree with his general conclusion that present safeguards , are deficient to an extent.which could pose serious potential . hazards to the public health and safety.. However, the task force did agree that there were areas in which improvements could be made and accordingly submitted recomendations to the Co:renission. ..
=
~
The Comission reviewed the task force's recomendations and agreed tney offer a sound basis for further improving the NRC safeguards program. Therefore, the Commission has directed the staff to take the following steps:
. 1. Further improve NRC's access to safeguards-related infomation -
O. . gathered by other sources, such as ERDA, the Department of Defense b (DoD), and the intelligence community. Specifically, the staff has been instructed to accelerate the implementation of the ERDA/NRC Agreement on Special Infomation, which became effective on March 10, 1977. The NRC staff has also been directed to contact DoD and ERDA for new ani axisting infomation on nuclear incidents at their facilities, and the Central Intelligence Agency for infomation on incidents at foreign facilities. In addition, the NRC staff has been instrue;ad to review carefully NRC's procedures for gathering safeguards-related infomation from all outside sources to detemine whether present arrangements are fully adequate to ensure that NRC is receiving and will continue to receive all infomation necessary to carry out its safeguards function effectively.
- 2. Carefully review current procedures for disseminating "
safeguards infomation to the hRC safeguards staff, to ensure that they routinely receive information essential to the performance of their safeguants functions. , is i:?:. - g s
Conran Allegations - 2 e+
- 3. -Develop and circulate'for use by relevant staff members a set
<h:=
of operating assumptions regarding: n*
- a. The relative case of fabricating clandestine fission if explosives. $ Sin.+
1::.
'b. The characteristics of possible adversaries who night :' ""..
direct their activities against a nuclear facility. .
- c. The reliability and utility of infonnation received .
from outside sources. These operating assumptions will assist the staff by making clear ' the degree of conservatism that should exist in safeguards considerations, especially in cases where sensitive information - is not practicable or where there is a lack of definitive information.
'Ihe use of such formalized assumptions by the staff will particularly help ensure consistency in the application of conservatism to safeguards programs. i=n.
- 4. Prepare a paper for Comission review which discusses in depth and provides ' appropriate documentation for the current NRC - z.e assumptions concerning threat level and adversary characteristics. -
- 5. Continue assigning a high priority to development of a -
systematic safeguards licensing review methodology and improved h.,. guidance on acceptable levels of protection ag'ainst theft. '
- 6. Continue to issue statements to the public concerning safeguards issues which clearly reflect inherent uncertainties.
If a safeguards incident does occur, NRC public statements must accurately describe the circumstances, the remedial action taken, and the resolution of the problem. In addition to the foregoing, the NRC has recently approved for publication for public comment two major safeguards rules which [n m uld substantially upgrade safeguards requirements for licensees. One rule would provide strengthened physical protection against radiological sabotage and theft of strategic special nuclear . . . .p materials at both fuel cycle facilities and reactors. The other i proposed rule would stipulate training and qualification- F requirements for security personnel protecting nuclear facilities
"rb or nuclear shipments against theft and sabotage, i
,'i_ *
[ . . . . . l % g.
.: .. :. =
n
l
='
i?
' / :: >
CURRENT LITIGATION i-l.i (.:= :.: ry Tne judicial aspects of pending litigation involving the NRC (see appended summary) fall outside the jurisdiction of the Office - of Policy Evaluation. Therefore, the summary is included for informtional purposes only. is. The Office of General Counsel has indicated its willingness to provide additional information or briefings as desired. i
- en
\' (?
- 4. ...
- f. . . .. +
s.
- t
..I
" I e
(f C u l
..f:i
. ___ - - . _ _ _ ___}}