ML20153A937
| ML20153A937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/27/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32060, REF-10CFR9.7 AC61-1, AC61-1-03, AC61-1-3, NUDOCS 8807120663 | |
| Download: ML20153A937 (45) | |
Text
__
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON PROPOSED RULE ON EARLY SITE PERMITS STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date:
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1988 Pages:
1-34 I
l l
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 18251 Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8807120663 0006Z1 PDR 10Cl-H ppg PT9.7
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held 6/ 29/88' in the Commission's office at One on White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was g
open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edi ted, and i t may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, anv statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
h m*
/
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON PROPOSED RULE ON EARLY SITE PERMITS 5
STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION AND COMBINED 6
LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS e
7 8
PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 One White Flint North 12 Rockville, Maryland 13 14 Monday, June 27, 1988 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 10:04 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of 18 the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 23 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 24 25 1
f 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
CHILK 4
W.
PARLER S
M. MALSCH 6
V. STELLO 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
(10:04 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Today the Commission is to be briefed ny the General 5
Counsel on the development of a proposed rule covering 6
standardization, pre-approval of sites, and combined 6
7 construction permits and operating licenses.
8 This is an information briefing today and no vote is 9
expected at this meeting.
10 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been proposing 11 licensing reform legislation to the Congress for a number of 12 years.
Even though legislation is still needed to bring about 13 some aspects of licensang reform, much can be done and the 14 Commission is considering rulemaking to adopt these initiatives 15 to the extent the Agency's current legislative authority 16 permits.
17 The proposed rule defines the procedural requirements 18 for design certification through rulemaking for current and 19 future designs.
20 I believe that the safety benefits of standardization 21 designs are many and can make a significant improvement in the 22 operational safety of future plants.
23 The process of pre-approval of plant designs and of 24 plant sites will facilitate more timely and informed review of 25 the technical and policy issues by addressing them before plant
4 1
construction is started and before the licensee has committed 2
years of effort and many millions of dollars to such a project.
3 Additionally, the nuclear industry is now 4
sufficiently mature in my judgment to allow utilities to apply 5
for a combined construction permit and operating license.
The 6
hearing process should address those issues which have safety 7
impact and which have not been addressed before.
8 By focusing the combined hearing on issues early in 9
the life of a project, the intent would be to resolve and to 10 close them in an open and effective manner.
If the optional 11 hearing is considered necessary, then it can address the 12 limited issues which might have arisen during construction.
13 I believe that the Commission is ready to take the 14 responsible action to make the changes needed to improve the 15 current rules.
I further believe the American people will be 16 better served by improvements which will encourage 17 standardization and improve the licensing process.
18 In my opinion, these changes will contribute to 19 better informed and more timely decisions that will also result 20 in enhanced safety.
i 21 The Commission paper describing the proposed rule is 22 available at the doors to the meeting room.
23 Do my fellow commissioners have any opening comments 1
24 before we proceed?
25 (No response.]
5 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Parler, you may proceed.
2 MR. PARLER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 3
members of the Commission.
I am very pleased to be here to 4
brief the Commission on this very important procedural paper.
5 The fact that it is a procedural paper dealing vith the 6
administrative process explains why a lawyer is here briefing 7
you.
8 I would like to recognize a number of people that 9
were involved in the team effort to produce this paper, Mr.
10 Malsch on my left was over a period of years involved in just 11 about every licensing reform proposal this commission and its 12 predecessor agency proposed.
Mr. Crockett sitting down 13 provided the day to day work that produced the paper.
The 14 members of Ifr. Stello's staff, Mr. Morris from Research, Mr.
15 Rubenstein from NRR, Jerry Wilson from Research.
We worked 16 very closely with them, Mr. Crockett did, and Dr. Zolton 17 Rosztoczy also was very actively involved.
18 Mr. Chairman, we also have a brief outline of the 19 paper that is available to people who might be interested.
You 4
20 have already mentioned that the paper is available to the 21 public, to the members of the audience.
22 The first six pages of the paper is a good summary of 23 the policy issues and also some of the major differences l
24 between the proposed rule and the proposed legislation.
In 25 addition, the paper has attached to it as a part of the l
l t
6 1
proposed rule, something that is described administratively as 2
supplemental information.
That is really the regulatory 3
history of the proposed rule.
That covers some 42 pages.
4 Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, you and your 5
colleagues have supported an effort to make some changes in 6
this area for some time.
Many of the earlier proposals were 7
legislative proposals.
Last year, however, there was a policy 8
statement that was published for public comments, 60 days were 9
allowed for public comment.
The policy statement was published 10 in September.
A workshop was held in October.
11 In a sense, this proposed rule has been drafted with 12 the benefit of public comments already.
However, if the 13 Commission votes to publish the proposed rule, which I will 14 urge them to do, the formal round of public comments called for 15 by the Administrative Procedures Act will be obtained on the 16 proposed rule and we will give them.very careful consideration.
17 The proposal has also gone through the CRGR, it has 18 been coordinated, as I have already suggested with NRR and 19 Research and it was also reviewed by the ACRS and there is an 20 ACRS letter on the subject which suggests certain drafting 21 changes, but at least as I read the ACRS letter, the ACRS 22 doern't have any fundamental problems with the proposal.
23 Mr. Chairman, before I go through the outline, if I 24 may, I would like to cover a little bit of the background.
I 25 think the background is important to help explain why we are
i 7
1 where we are and why some of the elements in the proposal are 2
so important.
3 At the beginning, I would like to emphasize we are 4
talking about a process and to some extent failings of a 5
process to meet current needs.
I'm not talking about people.
6 Indeed, it was not too many years ago that people who were in 7
our predecessor agency had to start from nothing and come up 8
with a system.
The system they came up with is a two step 9
licensing process to implement the provisions of the Atomic 10 Energy Act of 1954, provisions which have inured over the 11 years.
These provisions were probably adequate to deal with 12 developmental reactors but I think that events certainly in the 13 1970's and 1980's have indicated that the two step process is 14 not the r;ost nuitable one for the licensing of a commercial 15 nuclear power reactor.
16 Mr. Chairman, I also recognize that those who may 17 argue about the need for this proposed rule point to many other 18 things that have contributed to the problems which the industry 19 and this agency have faced over the last decade or so.
That 20 might well be and it is not my purpose here to argue about 21 those or even to discuss those.
I am focusing only on the need 22 for a change to the process.
This is the process which the 23 predecessor of this agency created and it is under this 24 agency's control to change and do the best it can to change the 25 process administratively.
8 1
Mr. Chairman, there were a number of events over the 2
years that have contributed to perhaps the present 3
unsuitability of the process to serve future licensing needs.
4 The Congress in 1957 amended the Atomic Energy Act to 5
provide for mandatory hearings, both at the construction permit 6
and the operating license stage.
It also provided for a 7
statutory Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and that 8
amendment emphasized the need for the openness of the process.
9 This legislation in 1957 was prompted by a rather 10 unsatisfactory experience of the Atomic Energy Commission in 11 its first major licensing action.
12 In essence, a construction permit was issued without 13 full disclosure of the concerns that certain folks had 14 including members of the then non-statutory Advisory Committee 15 on Reactor Safeguards.
This was the famous PRDC decision.
In 16 that decision, the Commission decided that it could postpone 17 the consideration and resolution of safety issues until the 18 operating license stage, provided that there was reasonable 19 assurance that the issues would be resolved before the plant 20 was put into operation.
The Supreme Court of the United States 21 approved that approach.
22 It was apparent under that approach that there would 23 be considerable risks involved after construction had been 24 undertaken as to whether or not the plant would be allowed to 25 operate.
In that decision, by the way, the Supreme Court did
9 1
emphasize something that is fairly routine in the language of 2
this Commission over the years, that is that safety is 3
paramount in its regulatory decisionmaking process.
4 In early 1960, the Atomic Energy Commission was 5
dissatisfied with the requirements for both a mandatory hearing 6
at both the construction permit and the operating license 7
stage, and they sought major reforms.
The legislation that was 8
enacted in 1962 eliminated the mandatory public hearing at the 9
operating license stage and established the Atomic Safety and l
10 Licensing Board approach.
However, the Congress rejected the l
11 suggestions for further major reforms in the two step process.
l 12 The two step process, as I've already mentioned, has prevailed 13 until this day.
14 A major challenge to the two step system was the 15 enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act in the early 16 1970's and the Calvert Cliffs' decision.
After that, in 17 addition to radiological, public health and safety and common 18 defense and security issues, the process had to take care of a 19 wide variety of environmental issues.
20 To help meet the challenge of that, the Congress in 21 1972 passed an interim licensing authorization rule which had a 22 life of about " rea years.
That rule dealt with the issue that 23 we at least in part are trying to deal with in the proposed 24 rule, that is if a plant has been completely constructed, fully 25 constructed and is ready to operate safely, that the process 1
10 1
should not hold it up from operation.
2 There were other developments, Mr. Chairman, such as 3
the emphasis about the mid-1970's on safeguards, physical 4
security, et cetera.
Along the way, we got another major 5
decision from the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Vermont Yankee 6
decision, which emphasized that we could resolve issues in 7
informal rulemaking proceedings under the APA.
8 In 1979, there was the TMI-2 matter and the events 9
that followed that, one of which was the adoption in 1970 (sic) 10 of the emergency planning --
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
1980, I believe.
12 MR. PARLER:
I'm sorry, 1980, of the emergency 13 planning rule, a rule which contemplated certain state and 14 local participation, a rule which was a part of a two step 15 process which permitted decisions not to be made until the 16 operating license stage.
17 As I have already said, over the years, legislative 18 efforts were made to have the process revised, unsuccessfully, 19 certainly since 1972.
20 The two step process has worked for many reactors.
21 The cases that are well known are cases in which the process 22 has failed considerably, perhaps because of good reasons.
The 23 process in some of these cases goes on.
No one knows for sure 24 when the process will end.
In some of these cases, the process 25 produces thousands of pages of hearing transcripts, but the
11
+
1 plants are not allowed to receive their full power license.
2 I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with how the 3
particular cases are being handled, what I am suggesting and as 4
strongly as I can is that process for the future, or a process 5
for the future which permits those sort of results is not'a 6
satisfactory one.
7 The decision criteria for the reform of the process 8
that we have set out for nurselves over the years is that 9
safety must continue to be paramount, there should be 10 opportunity for effective public participation, the process 11 must be an open one.
The Commission and the regulators must be 12 candid with the public, the basis for the regulatory decisions 13 should be mado a part of the public record, the credibility of 14 the process is very important, the system should continue to 15 provide for checks and balances, such as the Commission 16 involvement, the ACRS' involvement, oversight involvement by 17 the congressional committees and judicial review of final 18 administrative decisions.
19 Also, there should be no alteration of the present 20 provisions in our regulations and also in the Atomic Energy 21 Act, under which this agency can take enforcement action if 22 enforcement action is warranted to ensure that the health and 23 safety of the public is protected.
1 24 MR. PARLER:
Those are the fundamental principles 25 which should guide any change.
Reality also suggests that if
12 1
the changes are going to contemplate early approvals before the 2
decision is made to construct a plant, there should be some 3
sort of proper incentives to the system to provide the 4
foundation for people so that they can come in and seek these 5
early approvals.
6 The essence of what I'm talking about is a finality 7
of a decision once made, unless there's real good reason to 8
change the decision.
If you don't have that, the changes we're 9
talking about really will not mean anything -- at least not too 10 much.
Also, another principle is that we build on what we now 11 have that works fairly well.
12 We, in this proposal, would continue to rely on the 13 Part 50 provisions.
The various provisions that we've had 14 since 1972 for standardization, the appendix in Part 50 for 15 manufacturing licenses, the provision in the Part 50 for 16 duplicate plants and for replicative plants as well as for 17 final design approvals, would be preserved.
18 Another principle that has to be kept in mind is the 19 complexity of the administrative process has to be reduced.
It 20 has to be made more simple, fair, thorough, but the complexity 21 has to be reduced.
22 Finally, whatever we do has to be in accord with law.
23 It has to be tested to see whether we believe it will work and
~'
it has to be fair to all the various interests that are 24 25 involved.
i 13 1
Now, as you already mentioned in your opening 2
statement, the common objectives that are needed on the basis 3
of the experience with the two-step power process is to try to 4
get earlier decisions certainAy on designs, standardized 5
designs, and on sites.
There is a language in the paper which 6
talks about the maturity of the industry.
Certainly things 7
have changed drastically since the 1960s when plants were 8
largely developmental.
Just about everything was first of a 9
kind.
10 As of recently, the United States has roughly 1,200 11 reactor years of experience.
Worldwido, I am told there is 12 roughly approximately 4,800 reactors years of experience.
So 13 really that experience is the basis largely for the position 14 taken in the paper that the industry has matured so that it 15 should be able to provide information which is needed for 16 earlier decisions.
17 The objective is to get as much approved from a 18 regulatory standpoint as one can before construction begins or 19 before construction needs to commence and as I've already 20 mentioned, to provide for reasonable finality of the decisions 21 once made so that the full benefit of the earlier approvals can 22 be obtained.
23 As you have also mentioned in your opening statement, 24 the basic approach to achieve these common objectives in the 25 proposed rule and the early site approvals, standardized
l 14 1
designs, the combined construction permit, the conditional 2
operative license, these are no new concepts.
They have been 3
proposed over the years for quite a few years.
I believe that 4
this paper which was worked on by the team that I sentioned at 5
the outset has perhaps focused more clearly and more thoroughly 6
on the various elemente than have any of the earlier proposals.
7 The commen features in the proposed rule for the 8
early site, for the standardized design and for the combined 9
license is an opportunity for public participation, an 10 appropriate hearing.
We have to have a hearing on the early 11 site approvals and on the combined construction and operating 12 license because the Atomic Energy Act does provide a mandatory 13 hearing for construction permits.
That has not been changed.
14 It is fairly clearly to me that the early site approval and the 15 combined construction permit -- no, operating license -- are 16 portions of the construction permit approval as we have noted 17 under the two-step process.
18 The rule for each of these areas provides for 19 appropriate finality of decisions which it is clear to me, 20 calls for a disciplined approach both on the part of this 21 agency and on the part of the industry.
This agency of course 22 has to assure that the public is adequately protected.
It has 23 to assure that the requirements of the license and its 24 regulations are met.
25 The industry on the other hand, does have the
15 1
opportunity to seek amendments to things that have been 2
launched, approved, or early approved and also to seek changes 3
or variances from licenses or permits.
It is fairly clear that 4
if the changes are not controlled at least to some extent, the 5
objectives of the standardization, the earlier approvals, would be lost.
7 Mr. Chairman, I'm about on page 1, the middle of the 8
page of this outline and I will proceed with that.
The 9
proposed regulation embodies as much of the proposed 10 legislation as legal authority permits.
The differences are 11 not all that great but they are significant.
There cannot be a 12 combined construction permit and operating license without any 13 conditions because we don't have that legislative authority.
14 The request for early site approvals cannot be 15 followed by nonapplicants for construction permits.
Of those 16 two, by far the most important is the lack of authority to 17 issue a combined license.
The rule pays particular attention 18 to the early resolution of issues concerning emergency planning 19 and quality assurance.
These are matters which have come along 20 in some of these proceedings rather late in the process, 21 certainly after substantial construction has taken place.
22 The proposed rule poses the old paths to 23 standardization.
The early site permit is discussed in the 24 paper -- statement of consideration page 9, the rule starts on 25 page 46.
As I mentioned already, it's essentially a partial
16 1
construction permit.
The objective would be to resolve as many 2
of the site related CP issues as possible.
y 3
If early sites were approved, this would permit the 4
banking of sites.
Since an environmental impact statement
'l v
5 would be required and the site-related environmental concerns 6
would be focused on early, a site permittee would be allowed to 7
do certain non-safety related work at the site -- clearing the 8
site, digging the foundation out, etcetera.
9 There would be a mandatory hearing here.
This is an 10 opportunity where in my judgment the problems are certainly 11 likely to contribute the most because certainly it would seem 12 that citizens are out of site would know a good bit about it 13 whereas they might not know too much about the plant that might 14 be put there.
15 The very important part of the early site proposal is 16 the language which contemplates the settlement of emergency 17 planning issues as much as possible at this state.
You may 18 recall, Mr. Chairman, that the National Governor's Association 19 recommended resolutisn of emergency planning issues before the 20 construction permit is granted and then other correspondents 21 with other governmental officials which has the same theme.
22 The rule would require that this be done but it was stopped 23 short of requiring certifications from state and local 24 officials because that would not seem to be a prudent course in 25 my judgment but it would suggest that the applicant seeks
17 1
certifications of cooperation from state and local authorities.
2 I think that just about everything that could be done 3
at the early site stage in the emergency planning area should 4
be done.
Whatever refinements could be made should be made.
5 Whatever coordination with FEMA that could be done should be 6
done.
If there's preliminary planning that is required, that 7
should be done.
Certainly if there is any basis for believing 8
that the site is not amenable to emergency planning because of 9
the traffic or what have you, that should be resolved as early 10 as possible and the site approval stage is such an occasion for 11 looking at emergency planning matters.
12 The early site proposal provides for the finality of 13 commission determinations which are reached in the proceedings 14 on early site permits.
During the term of the permit, 15 modifications are limited to those that are needed on the basis 16 of significant new information for compliance with the permit 17 with the regulationc or which in the judgment of the commission 18 are needed to provide adeguate protection to the public.
19 The permit is for a term of 20 years and it may be 20 renewed and the features in the existing regulation for the 21 review of early site issues remain available to any applicant 22 that might want to go that route.
Mr. Chairman, I'm on page 3 23 of the outline, now, certification of designs by rulemaking.
l 24 This is covered in the paper, statement of considerations on 25 page 13, and the rule, page 56.
18 1
Priority is ni.vo.n to essentially complete designs in 2
the proposed rule.
The rule permits applications with 3
incomplete designs which contain all that is needed -- all the 4
information that is needed and significantly affects safety.
5 This is consistent with the proposed legislation and 6
the policy statement which ';alks about the approval of major 7
subsystems.
The approach would leave the door open for 8
advanced designs which may have various bearings about the 9
safety significance of the balance of the plant.
10 The level of essentially the complete designs is the 11 scope that is contemplated, but there is this safety valve that 12 would provide for something less than the complete design, 13 provided that all of the matters that are that are safety 14 significant are covered.
15 The level of detail required is that level which 16 permits a final Commission decision'on the design and the 17 drawing up of procurement specs by the -- whoever it is that's 18 going to procure the design.
19 There's no applicat'Jn fee that will be required.
l 20 The fees will be paid by the ho.1 der of the design certification l
21 on a deferred basis.
22 This is somewhat different from the approach in the i
23 proposed legislation which suggested that perhaps EFE could be 24 paid eventually by the applicant for the license using the 25 design.
l l
l
19 1
The Commission has recently recaived a letter from an 2
industry group on this, but there is a provision, as I've said, 3
for no application fee to be paid and for the deferral of the 4
fee and the deferral would work unless eventually it turns out 5
that the approved design was never used.
6 The design would be handled as a rulemaking 7
proceeding, under which there would be an opportunity for an 8
informal hearing.
9 Perhaps, before I say a three person board.
The 10 three person board wouldn't be iron clad, but I mentioned that, 11 or the proposed rule mentions that, because that is the system 12 that we generally follow for hearings.
13 The design proposed rule also has the finality 14 provisions, the objective of which is to preserve the benefits 15 of standardization on one hand, but on the other to recognize 16 that the Commission may have changes that it needs to insist on 17 because of its regulatory responsibilities and there may be 18 instances in which the other holder of the design may seek an 19 amendment or an exsmption from the design rule.
20 It perhaps bears emphasis that after the informal 21 rulemaking is completed, the certified design will be a part of 22 this Commissions rules.
l 23 Therefore, if you want to depart from the rule, you would have to seek an exemption, the same way that exemptions 24 l
1 25 are sought from any regulation this Commission might have.
1 l
20 1
But this suggests a very important point and that is 2
that the design rule itself, before any particular approval, 3
one should be very careful that it includes what it should 4
include from the regulatory staripoint, but it doesn't have a 5
lot of excess baggage.
6 vtherwise, every time there needs to be a departure 7
from the other rule, it would have to either go through an 8
exemption process or an amendment process.
9 It's somewhat the same sort of problem, as a problem 10 that you all heard about last week from those that briefed you 11 on the other technical specifications program for the current 12 reactors.
13 The standardization design, once approved, will ask 14 for ten years.
It may be renewed tnereafter.
On Page 4 of the 15 outline now, talking about the combined construction permits 16 and conditional operating licenses, which I will just call 17 combined licensing, a combined license.
18 Having already made the point, that under our 19 existing legal authority we have to issue the conditional 20 operating license as a part of the combined license.
21 The rule provides an approach as near to our one-step 22 licensing as we have the authority to provide.
It requires a 23 final design in the application for the combined license, 24 preferably a certified design, but it doesn't have to be.
25 But in any event, if it's not, they have to have
21 1
enough information for the staff or this Agency to approve the 2
final design.
3 I've already mentioned with regard to emergency 4
planning that it's preferable that the emergency planning l
5 issues be resolved at the early site stage.
6 But in any event, they certainly should be settled 7
before construction begins.
There is a mandatory hearing on 8
the application for the combined license.
9 I would assume that the application for the combined 10 license, which would rely on an early site permit and on an 11 approved design, would cite that fact.
12 Those things would not have to be re-explored and it 13 would not be re-explored in the hearing on the combined 14 license.
The things that would be explored would be the site 15 specific issues that could not have been earlier resolved.
16 Another very important feature of the proposed rule 17 is that it tries to settle the quality assurance matters as 18 early as possible.
19 The license would contain the proposed inspection 20 tasks and acceptance criteria and those things would have to be 21 submitted as a part of the application.
22 There is a question that would be asked if the 23 Commission approves as proposed rule the question has to do 24 with the feasibility of sign-offs at various points as these 25 inspections, tests, etcetera, are completed.
I 1
22 1
The proposed rule does contemplate prompt staff 2
review in stages during the construction.
This would be 3
accomplished by the normal inspection process.
4 A difference, of course, is that the proposed 5
inspections test and acceptance criteria would be spelled out 6
in advance.
7 When the construction has been completed in accord 8
with the license, the Commission must determine whether to 9
authorize operation.
10 There must be an opportunity for a hearing at this 11 stage, but the opportunity for hearing will be very narrowly 12 focused.
There must be a contention that there has been a 13 material and uncorrected nonconformance with the license or 14 that adequate protection is threatened.
I 15 There must be significant information to support the i
16 other points that I have just covered.
In other words, it 17 wouldn't work if somebody or a group would come in before you 18 had a session like this, and dump three feet of material in
(
19 front of you as, indeed, has happened at some of these i
20 proceedings, as at least two of you know.
21 The Commission's involvement at this stage will be l
22 comparable to that of the Commission in its immediate 23 effectiveness reviews, which the Commission has had a 24 considerable amount of experience in.
I 25 And it would be the Commission itself that would make l
l
23 1
the judgment as to whether any hearing were required prior to 2
licensing authorization.
3 Mr. Chairman, up to this point, I've tried to 4
emphasize the benefits of the proposal.
What can be done 5
without legislation.
Legislation, in my judgment, however, 6
should still be sought.
7 Perhaps if legislation is sought in the future, it 8
could incorporate the points in the proposal that the 9
Commission might think are refinements and have merit, that, of 10 course, whatever improvements are obtained in the final rule, 11 if indeed that's the way that the Commission decides to go.
12 Legislation could fully implement the one-step 13 licensing process.
We could issue one license instead of a 14 license which had a conditional operating license in it.
15 Legislation could remove the resources burdens of 16 uncontested hearings, even though there is no contest about a 17 construction permit.
18 The hearing is still mandatory.
I don't know whether 19 that point has much practical importance to it any longer 20 because of people that seek intervention in these proceedings, 21 but at least in the decades past that was a question.
22 Why have a formal proceeding if the matter was not 23 contested.
Until such legislation is enacted, I've tried to 24 suggest to you that the proposal has a substantial merit on its 25
- own,
24 1
And also, if the proposal is adopted as a final rule, 2
the final rule could receive congressional endorsement by our 3
oversight committees, appropriations committees, and that 4
itself would enhance its stability and finality, even if the S
Congress did not decide to enact legislation changing the other 6
system.
7 On Page 28 of the paper, there are certain questions 8
that the Commission would ask.
I would like to emphasize that 9
the purpose of these questions is to seek out assistance on 10 particular areas.
11 They should not be understood by anyone to suggest 12 that, in my judgment, this Commission, this Agency, lacks the 13 authority to put out this proposed rule or to adopt the final 14 rule.
15 We want to try to cover all bases, ask questions 16 about things that the people have raised, so that we will have 17 as full and complete a rulemaking record as we can get and so 18 that if something in any of these areas does come up, perhaps 19 we would not have to go out for comments again.
20 If the Commission wishes, it could go to a final rule 21 on the basis of the comments that it has received.
Before 22 closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address -- this is not 23 in the outline -- some of the arguments that I've heard people 24 make about why this proposal is not needed.
25 One of the first points is that it's not needed
25 1
because no applications are filed.
That doesn't hold any water 2
at all in my judgment.
The fact that no applications are 3
pending, or not a large number of them, does provido'the time 4
to reflect on things such as that.
5 It is my judgment, unless the process is changed, it 6
is unlikely to be used by people that might have to make the 9
7 decisi0n about how they're going to obtain bulk power supply in 8
the other future.
9 I'm confident that if the system is not changed, that 10 the present system would not be used.
Another point made is 11 that the two-step process could have worked better, but it just 12 didn't work better.
13 Well, the fact is that we have the history that we 14 have.
I emphasized at the beginning the first Supreme Court 15 decision in this regulatory area that was obtained, which was 16 endorsed putting things off till after construction commenced, l
17 at least during the developmental phase.
18 The fact that -- it is a fact, in my judgment, that 19 the system does need to be revised.
Another point is that 20 public participation is too limited at the operating license 21 stage, particularly in three areas.
22 Emergency planning, operational readiness, and 23 whether or not the construction was in accord with the license.
l 24 Issues relating to those.
25 Why emergency planning issues have to wait until a
26 1
nuclear power plant has been constructed and is ready to 2
operate, I haven't been able to figure that out.
3 They could be resolved earlier.
Certainly completed 4
presence of a nuclear power plant does not -- is not needed for 5
one to make the decision as to whether or not there is 6
something wrong physically with the location so that emergency 7
planning would be very difficult.
8 As far as ccnstruction accord with the licenses are 9
concerned, I've mentioned to you that one of the features of 10 the combined license is the provision in the license for 11 inspections, tests, and the acceptance criteria.
12 It would seem to me that that would be a much better 13 process to decide along the other way whether the construction 14 is in accordance with the application.
15 As far as operational readiness is concerned, it is 16 not clear to me why the process that has baon used in the past, 17 very careful look-see at the transition from construction to 18 operation, the very disciplined and deliberate steps throughout 19 the early stages, why that isn't adequate.
20 But in any event, if they are real issues that are 21 material to operation that have to be looked at, the proposal 22 does provide an opportunity for a hearing at the operating 23 license stage, although a very limited one.
24 And perhaps the limited one is rore understandable in 25 view of the fact that there is c requirement for a hearing
27 1
prior to the time that the site is approved, i
2 There's a requirement for an informal hearing prior 3
to the approval of the design, and there's a requirement for a 4
hearing before the combined license is issued and before 5
construction begins.
6 Another point that people, some people make is that 7
the proposed rule should, what they call mandate, 8
standardization.
Apparently allow for no exceptions.
9 Well, for any administrative process, my judgment 10 would suggest that there always should be some safety valve so 11 that -- to deal with unforseen procedural circumstances.
12 The other side of the coin, there are some that 13 believe that we have no authority to mandate.
And as I've 14 already said, we certainly encourage in this proposed rule 15 standardized designs, principally because of the safety 16 benefits which could floor from those designs.
17 But if someone, for a good reason, wants to go with 18 the other two-step approach, they are free to do so.
Another 19 argument is that the proposal would stifle engineering 20 ingenuity, close out the public, which I've already talked 21 about, spread safety problems to a large number of reactors 22 since there would be standardized designs, and it would defeat, 23 because of the multitude of site-specific changes that would have to occur to the standardized design.
24 25 It would seem to me that there would be competition
28 1
among the designers.
It is not at all clear to me why there is 2
any valid basis for the argument that engineering ingenuity 3
would be stifled.
4 I've already said that the public should be better 5
able to participate early on, particularly at the very 6
important site approval stage.
7 Significant safety problems should be minimized, if 8
not precluded by the very discipline system for review, and 9
also by the discipline system to control modifications.
10 The discipline system that I've emphasized a number 11 of times that is necessary to preserve the finality of 12 decisions that are once made, unless, again, there is some 13 reason, regulatory reason, such as protection of the public 14 health and safety, conf'ormance with the licensing provisions, 15 that the Commission believes weren't re-examining some of the 16 issues that were involved in the early decisions.
17 Finally, there are some who express anti-trust 18 concerns.
We have looked at that.
We do not believe that 19 there are anti-trust concerns.
20 We're not talking about one design, but the various 21 vendors that are in this business would be free to come up with 22 standardized designs.
23 We're not talking about the nuts and bolts of a design, specifying various brand names or what have you.
- Also, 24 l
25 as a government regulation, if the Commission does propose it,
29 1
which in large part rests upon the needs to have a process 2
which would enhance safety, if there is an anti-trust problem 3
which develops, we have experts on our staff who work closely 4
with the Department of Justice and the problem could be, at 5
least from our point of view, could be taken care of.
6 We've checked the proposal a couple years ago, 7
informally with the Department of Justice.
They didn't express 8
any concern.
9 However, if the Commission decides to put out the 10 proposed rule, I will have the same check done again.
Back to 11 the outline, Mr. Chairman, Page 6, the conclusions.
12 In my judgment, the argument is overwhelming that the 13 existing two-step process needs reformation.
The essence of 14 the reform would be to encourage earlier resolutions of issues 15 and reasonable finality of decisions once made.
16 These are the points that ycu mentioned in your 17 opening statement and I've mentioned several times in this 18 briefing.
19 This reform could be accomplished under our present l
20 authority while enhancing safety and improving the opportunity 1
21 for public participation.
22 You mentioned at the outset that this was an 23 information paper.
Indeed it was, but I would respectfully 24 suggest that after the Commission has all of its questions 1
25 answered, that this paper be converted to a notation vote paper L
30 1
and should be published as soon as possible for public comment.
2 Sixty days would be allowed for the public comment.
3 If the proposal is published for public comment, I would plan 4
to monitor the -- or have someone monitor the comments very 5
carefully so that the various team players here would be aware 6
of all of the comments, and those which are of substantial 7
significance could be looked at as the comments are received 8
instead of waiting until the end and having these reviews take 9
place in sequence.
10 In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize 11 that this is an administrative process, a procedural rule.
It 12 doesn't have anything to do with technical regulatory 13 requirements for the licensing of a nuclear power reactor or 14 anything else.
15 The gentleman to my right presumably will do whatever 16 needs to be done there and at the appropriate time, I'm sure if 17 anything is needed, he will come forward with that.
18 That's all that I have.
I will be glad to answer any 19 questions that you might have.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much, Mr. Parler, for 21 an excellent presentation.
Before I go to my fellow 22 Commissioners, I know, Mr. Stello, your staff has participated 23 with Mr. Parler, the general counsel, in this drafting of the i
24 proposed rule.
l 25 Do you have any comments that you'd like to make at 1
t
31 1
this time?
2 MR. STELLO:
No, Mr. Chairman.
Except that we concur 3
fully with the paper and with the recommendation of Mr. Parler 4
that the Commission, as quickly as it can, make a decision to 5
move forward and publish for comments.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Questions of my 7
fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No question.
I thank the 9
staff for their effort and I hope the Commission will mcVe 10 expeditiously to convert this to a notation vote and we can get 11 this out for public comment.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
13 COMMISSIONER CARR:
No.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, just while Mr. Parler did 16 say that this should accommodate technical matters, it's a non-i i
17 technical paper, what is your perception, Mr. Stello, of how 18 this change would deal with the licensing of advanced reactor i
19 designs, particularly advanced light water reactor designs, and 20 other generations beyond those?
21 MR. ETELLO:
I think the procedure that's laid out in 22 here will fit.
You notice there are built into the paper, on 23 Page 32, where it raises this question as to whether any 24 further guidance in that context is, in fact, needed.
25 It isn't clear that we have the need for any further
32 1
requirements because the process itself requires both the 2
applicant and the staff to make the judgment that all of the 3
requirements of the Commission are, in fact, met, and that the 4
staff is, in fact, satisfied to move forward.
5 We will be sending the Commission, separately, some 6
papers that deal with advanced reactor concepts which may have, 9
7 as part of that process, certain requirements that we suggest 8
ought to be built into the certification process, such as 9
proof-testing of ideas before it can be certified, as an 10 example.
11 But that can easily be accommodated separately from 12 this rule and I think it is workable.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, I would just like to thank Mr.
15 Parler for what I consider one of the finest presentations 16 we've had at a Commission meeting on this subject or certainly 17 a subject such as complicated as this one.
18 And I commend you, Mr. Parler.
And also I commend 19 Mr. Malsch and the other of our agency colleagues, Mr. Parler, 20 you mentioned early on, the general counsel's office as well as 21 the technical staff, for a very, very fine piece of work.
22 I think that this is a very, very important effort, a f
23 significant effort, and I think the general counsel and the EDO 24 staff deserve our special commendation and appreciation for 25 this extremely professional and valuable piece of work.
l l
1
t 33 1
As far as our procedures are concerned, the 2
Commission procedures are concerned, it's my view that this 3
perhaps is the most important initiative that we're engaged in 4
this year, and now the task is ours at the Commission level.
5 The Commission, I know, will consider on an 6
expeditious basis, the proposed rule and hopefully we will be 7
able to vote perhaps even in the next few days to decide 8
whether or not to publish the rule for comment.
9 Again, it's my view that this is an extremely 10 important piece of work and I'd like very much to reach closure 11 on it, if we possibly can, by the end of the year.
12 I believe that we, the Commissioners, may have to 13 perform extraordinary efforts to meet t' hat schedule and I'd 14 suggest that perhaps my fellow Commissioners would work with 15 their own staffs to analyze and address the comments on the 16 rule of as these comments are received rather than waiting till 17 the end of the comment period.
18 In other words, I suggest we do everything we can to 19 stay up with that in regard.
I'd ask the general counsel's l
20 office and the staff to be sure that we're given that 21 opportunity because I do think that.if we're going to meet such 22 an ambitious schedule that the Commission itself and our staffs 23 have got to be involved continuously.
24 I would ask that that be done.
Again, let me just 25 say what a professional and outstanding piece of work I believe
34 1
that we've been presented.
2 We'll need to study it carefully, but I commend the 3
staff again for the effort that has gone forward in this 4
regard.
No other comments of my fellow Commissioners?
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just a second added.
It was an 6
absolutely superb presentation.
7 MR. PARLER:
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
We stand 9
adjourned.
10 (Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m.,
the hearing was 11 concluded.)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 t
21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
BRIEFING ON PROPOSED RULE ON EARLY SITE PERMITS TITLE OF MEETING: STANDARD' DESIGN CERTIFICATION AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1988 i
were transcribed by me.
I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoin'g events.
.b?
v&
tCLt psu) l 6/
I i
l Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O 9
\\.
s PART 52 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STANDARDIZATION AND LICENSING REFORM o PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF PART 52 o HAS SAME PARAMOUNT SAFETY PURPOSE AS LEGISLATION o ALSO SEEKS o RELIABILITY o EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, o ECONOMIES OF SCALE IN LEARNING AND SHARING OPERATING EXPERIENCE o SHORTER CONSTRUCTION TIMES o PREDICATED ON SAME GROUND AS LEGISLATION o THAT INDUSTRY IS READY TO BRING FORWARD COMPLETE DESIGNS o THUS ENABLING EARLY AND STABLE RESOLUTION OF ISSUES o AND REMOVING MUCH DELAY, UNCERTAINTY, COST IN LICENSING o PART 52 EMBODIES AS MUCH OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS NRC LEGAL AUTHORITY PERMITS o EARLY SITE PERMITS, DESIGN CERTS., CP/0LS o CP/0LS ARE WHERE THE BENEFITS ARE REALIZED o RULE ALSO MAKES ROOM FOR DESIGNS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVED BY PROTOTYPE TESTING o RULE PAYS PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO EARLY RESOLUTION OF ISSUES CONCERNING l
o EMERGENCY PLANNING o QUALITY ASSURANCE o SEEKS STABILITY, TO PRESERVE BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION o CLOSES NO OLD PATH TO STANDAPDIZATION l
l l
'EARLY SITE PERMITS o ESSENTIALLY A PARTIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT o RESOLVING MANY CP ISSUES o WOULD PERMIT BANKING OF SITES o ALLOWS LWA-1 WORK o REDRESS OF SITE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES o NO APPLICATION FEE; REVIEW FEES PAID BY HOLDER ON A DEFERRED BASIS o MANDATORY HEARING o TRIES TO SETTLE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AT THIS STAGE o GOVERN 0RS' ASSOCIATION RECOPJtENDS RESOLUTION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS GRANTED o RULE REQUIRES THAT APPLICANT FOR SITE PERMIT o SUMBIT PLANS AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE o SEEK CERTIFICATIONS OF COOPERATION FROM STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES o COMMISSION DETERMINES AT THIS STAGE WHETHER SITE IS AMENSABLE TO ADEQUATE PLANNING o FINALITY OF COPIIISSION DETERMINATIONS REACHED IN PROCEEDINGS ON EARLY SITE PERMITS:
o DURING TERM 0F PERMIT, BACXFITS ARE LIMITED TO ADEQUATE PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE o HOLDER OF PERMIT, APPLICANT FOR COMBINED LICENSE, OR l
LICENSEE MAY SEEK VARIANCES FROM PERMIT o PERMIT MAY BE RENEWED t
(
l l
l l
l
CERTIFICATIONS OF DESIGNS BY RULEMAKING o PRIORITY GIVEN TO ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE DESIGNS o BUT RULE PERMITS APPLICATIONS WITH INCOMPLETE DESIGNS WHICH CONTAIN ALL THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS SAFETY o THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND POLICY STATEMENT o LEAVES WAY OPEN FOR ADVANCED DESIGNS THAT MIGHT REMOVE SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT BALANCE OF PLANT o LEVEL OF DETAIL REQUIRED WHICH PERMITS FINAL COMMISSION DECISION ON DESIGN AND DRAWING UP OF PROCUREMENT SPECS o NO APPLICATION FEE; REVIEW FEES PAID BY HOLDER ON A DEFERRED BASIS o RULEMAKING PROCEDURES INCLUDE NOTICE AND COMMENT AND OPPORTUNITY FOR AN INFORMAL HEARING BEFORE 3-PERSON BOARD o FINALITY PROVISIONS CONTROL CHANGE TO PRESERVE BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION o NRC CHANGES ON DESIGN PERMITTED o DURING TERM 0F CERTIFICATION ONLY FOR ADEQUATE PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT CERTIFICATION o AT RENEWAL ALSO FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE BEYOND ADEQUATE PROTECTION o HOLDER MAY PETITION FOR AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATION o AMENDMENT GRANTED IF IT COMPLIES WITH REGULATIONS o BACKFITTED IF NEEDED FOR ADEQUATE PROTECTION o APPLICANT / LICENSEE CITING DESIGN MAY SEEK EXEMPTION FROM DESIGN RULE o REQUEST GRANTED IF IT MEETS 50.12 o LICENSEE CITING DESIGN RULE MAY NOT MAKE CHANGES TO PLANT WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL IF CHANGE INVOLVES PLANT AS DESCRIBED IN DESIGN RULE o CERTIFICATION MAY BE RENEWED
CDMBINED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL OPERATING LICENSES o RULE PROVIDES A CLOSE APPROACH TO ONE-STEP LICENSING o REQUIRES A FINAL DESIGN IN APPLICATION FOR LICENSE, PREFERABLY A CERTIFIED DESIGN o ALL EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES SETTLED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, PREFERABLY MANY OF THEM IN AN EARLY SITE PERMIT o MANDATORY HEARING ON APPLICATION o RULE TRIES TO SETTLE QA AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE o PROPOSED INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION o PREAMBLE PROMISES PROMPT STAFF REVIEW IN STAGES DURING CONSTRUCTION o WHEN CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE, CDMMISSION MUST DETERMINE WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE OPERATION o MUST BE OPPORTUllITY FOR HEARING AT THIS STAGE.
o PETITIONER MUST CONTEND WITH CASIS AND SPECIFICITY o TP
'RE HAS BEEN A MATERIAL At 1RECTED NONCONFORMANCE WITH LICENSE o OR ihai ADEQUATE PROTECTION IS THREATENED o COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT AT THIS STAGE IS COMPARABLE TO THAT IN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEWS e
I
LEGISLATION SHOULD STILL BE SOUGHT o CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEMENT OF AIMS STILL VALUABLE o AND LEGISLATION COULD o FULLY IMPLEMENT ONE-STEP LICENSING o REMOVE RESOURCE BURDEN OF UNCONTESTED HEARINGS
's o BUT UNTIL SUCH LEGISLATION IS ENACTED, PART 52 HAS SUBSTANTIAL MERIT AND STANDS ON ITS OWN.
o IF PART 52 IS ADOPTED, LATER CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEMENT OF IT COULD ENHANCE ITS STABILITY e
-,-,-,----,n-
CONCLUSIONS o ARGUMENT IS OVERWHELMING THAT EXISTING PROCESS NEEDS REFORMATION o ESSENCE OF REFORM WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE EARLIER RESOLUTIONS OF ISSUES AND REASONABLE FINALITY OF DECISIONS MADE o THIS COULD BE ACCOMPL SHED UNDER PRESENT AUTHORITY WHILE i
ENHANCING SAFETY, AND IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION o THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE COMMISSION AND PUBLISHED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT F
G e
CHRONOLOGY o NRC-PROPOSED LEGISLATION 1975 THROUGH 1987 o POLICY STATEMENT 9/87 o PUBLIC WORKSHOP 10/87 o ?UBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THROUGH END Or o TWO ROUNDS OF REVIEW BY RES, NRR, AND OGC 1/88 -5/88 o CRGR REVIEW 0F RES SECY PAPER ON STANDARDIZATION OF ADVANCED REACTORS 4/88 o ACRS REVIEW OF RES SECY PAPER AND PART 52 5/88-6/88 o NRR AND RES CONCURRENCE IN PROPOSED RULE 6/88 o CRGR REVIEW OF PART 52 6/88 o COMMISSION BRIEFING 6/27 4
M %%WNNk%%%%W6WAW6dWddWWW6WW&dWAfWggg g gggg g TRANSMITTAL TO:
N Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips
- )
j ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room d//9 /fI DATE:
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
Attached are copies of a Ccmmission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required.
tl Meeting
Title:
/b/ A W dade_.h
,M hd; h
&2 Atm fule W,
G-i i
m' w /d e '/ W Meeting Date:#
' ^ * (S p Open x
Closed l
\\i 1l Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS 1:
'8 fi to POR M
h lEl
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 I!
m/Aum &
l a
4l 2.
~ h-lb 0
l 12 9
3.
- i aj 5.
3:!
ji 6.
a!l
!l9 3
l
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachtrents, without SECY papers.
_alRs
__ s IlYilYlYlklYIIIIi l lYl IbY5
(
l h h lYl hlY bhl l l
I
__