ML20155B684
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _-- f%l-7 PDL '84 o,, UNITED STATES ' '8' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CM o E' WASHINGTON D.C.20555 .h ,/ SEP 2 91983 MEMORANDUM FOR: [Wil.11amTJ50lNteiad, Director and Chief Counsel Regulations Division, OELD FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director e Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON INTERIM FINAL "SH0LLY" RULE We are aware that Mr. T. Dorian of your staff is now working on the -final "Sholly" rule. The interim final rule was published on April 6, 1983 for a 30-day public coment period. Our comments are attached. We request that they be considered in pre-paring the final rule. We also request that this office have an oppor-tunity to review the drafts and final version of the final rule. t * .ks b irector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Coments cc: H. Denton E. Case 'I T. Novak G. Lainas T. Dorian F. Miraglia C. Tramell R. Purple
Contact:
C. Tramell, NRR (X27389) 4 8604160321 860327 PDR PR 2 45FR20491 PDR
w. COMMENTS ON INTERIM FINAL SH0LLY RULE 1. Remove the tenn " nergency" from the rule. This term here has already caused confusion with the " emergency" of 50.54 (x) where it has an D entirely different meaning. The circumstances for expedited licensing [ action can be described and defined without using the term " emergency." This comment is the same as that provided by Northeast Utilities in its letter of May 10, 1983. 2. Explicitly clarify (add) that the NRC may dispense with prior notice (of amendments involving NSHC) if extending a shutdown or extending a derating Q is involved. The first would accord with current practice; the second would j alleviate the probles.s we have experienced in issuing prompt license amend-ments to plants with 5% power licenses. Licensees in the low power testing phase frequently need fast amendments to avoid prolonging the test program due to errors or other changes needed in the newly - issued license. (*# State in the rule that the NRC need not respond to comments regarding NSHC if an amendment has been fully noticed for 30 days and no hearing has been /4 requested. This will avoid an unnecessary exercise since, if no hearing has been requested, the rule already states that no final NSHC detennination *, will be made. Therefore, comments cannot make a difference. This clarifi-cation would be helpful to the NRR staff. 4. Remove the press release. With the invention of the short FRN, the press 9 M'# release is not needed. Experience has shown that our press releases are 3/ M N misunderstood and have been completely re-written by the press (e.g., Crystal g Paidpublicannouncements("legalnotices")3realsounnecessary[P'g River 3). for the same reason. 0 S/ Consistent with 4. above, explicitly recognize the short FRN in the rule, fg g (C stating when it will be used and what it is. It should be used for all notices where less than 30 days notice is available. 6. Under State consultation, modify the sentence "nonetheless, before it (NRC) issues the amendment it will telephone that official for the purposes of 5, consultation". This phrase is too broad. Clarify that such a call will be made if a hearing has been requested or if less than a 30-day notice has been issued. See DLOP-228. This call is not made (nor would it serve any purpose) for proposed amendments noticed for 30 days for which no hearing has been requested. 7.' / Add to the list of "not likely" amendments those that involve a change to r fo J h non-radiological environmental technical specifications, b,, irs v Basis: Such changes do not involve safety-related matters related to the operation of a facility. Since no operational limitations are in-volved, such an amendment is not likely to involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or
r= - ) 1 .g s..- .-h= create the possibility 'of a new or different accident from any accidenti previously evaluated, or involve a'significant reduction-in a margin of-. safety. 8
A%I4 PDZ 8
- o UNITED STATES 3
F 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 ,/ SEP 2 91983 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Olmstead, Director and Chief Counsel Regulations Division, OELD FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON INTERIM FINAL "SH0LLY" RULE We are aware that Mr. T. Dorian of your staff is now working on the final "Sholly" rule. The interim final rule was published on April 6, 1983 for a 30-day public comment period. Our comments are attached. We request that they be considered in pre-paring the final rule. We also request that this office have an oppor-tunity to review the drafts and final version of the final rule. sn irector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Coments e cc: H. Denton E. Case T. Novak G. Lainas T. Dorian F. Miraglia C. Tramell R. Purple
Contact:
C. Tramell, NRR (X27389) 0
COMMENTS ON INTERIM FINAL Sil0 LEY. RULE ' 1. Remove the tenn " emergency" from the rule. This term here has already caused confusion with the " emergency" of 50.54 (x) where it has an entirely different meaning. The circumstances for expedited licensing action can be described and defined without using the term " emergency." This connent is the same as that provided by Northeast Utilities in its letter of May 10, 1983. 2. Explicitly clarify (add) that the NRC may dispense with prior notice (of amendments involving NSHC) if extending a shutdown or extending a derating is involved. The first would accord with current practice; the second would alleviate the problems we have experienced in issuing prompt license amend-ments to plants with 5% power licenses. Licensees in the low power testing phase frequently need fast amendments to avoid prolonging the test program due to errors or other changes needed in the newly - issued license. 3. State in the rule that*the NRC need not respond to comments regarding NSHC if an amendment has been fully noticed for 30 days and no hearing has been requested. This will avoid an unnecessary exercise since, if no hearing has been requested, the rule already states that no final NSHC detennination will be made. Therefore, comments cannot make a difference. This clarifi-cation would be helpful to the NRR staff. 4. Remove the press release. With the invention of the short FRN, the press release is not needed. Experience has shown that our press releases are misunderstood and have been completely re-written by the press (e.g., Crystal River 3). Paid public announcements (" legal notices") are also unnecessarys for the same reason. 5. Consistent with 4. above, explicitly recognize the short FRN in the rule, stating when it will be used and what it is. It should be used for all notices where less than 30 days notice is available. 6. Under State consultation, modify the sentence "nonetheless, before it (NRC) issues the amendment it will telephone that official for the purposes of consultation". This phrase is too broad. Clarify that such a call will be made if a hearing has been requested or if less than a 30-day notice has been issued. See DLOP-228. This call is not made (nor would it serve any purpose) for proposed' amendments noticed for 30 days for which no hearing has been requested. 7. Add to the list of "not likely" amendments those that involve a change to non-radiological environmental technical specifications. Basis: Such changes do not involve safety-related matters related to the operation of a facility. Since no operational limitations are in-volved, such an amendment is not likely to ' evolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or L.
j.. 2-create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 0 a e O
bh k c r.t C:ntrol (50-445) / NRC POR L PDR PRC System NSIC Mt 15 583 LB#1 Rdg. f1Rushbrook Dock:.t No.: 50-445 SBurwell DEisenhut/RPurple Attorney, OELD Mr. R. J. Gary ELJordan, 0IE Executive Vice President Jf1 Taylor, 0IE and General Manager ACRS Texas Utilities Generating Company TNovak 2001 Bryan Tower RHeishman, 0IE Dallas, Texas 75201 .JScinto,LOELD
Dear Mr. Gary:
Subject:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Independent Assessment Progran By a letter dated June 10, 1983, Mr. H. C. Schmidt of Texas Utilities Services Inc. (TUSI), transmitted a proposed plan for an Independent Assessment Program (IAP).for Comanche Peak to be performed by CYGHA. Mr. Schnidt's letter requested our concurrence in this proposal. The !!RC staff has reviewed the proposed IAP deseloped by CYGNA and TUSI. We telieve that the scope and content of all independent assessment or verification rrograms, i.ncluding the IAP should be structured such that the results may be considered a representative statement about the overall quality of the design of the plant. To that objective, we are providing the following comments for your consideration: 1. The proposed IAP identifies train A of the spent fuel pool cooling systen as the selected system to be reviewed. An optimum system for selection might be some other system which includes a design and material (e.g., instrumentation, control and electrical) interface with Westinghouse and Gibbs & Hill, which includes demanding (e.g., high pressure, high temperature) design parameters, and which has an active role in the operation and/or protection of the reactor. 2. The proposed IAP does not include any technical design review. 3. The proposed IAP restricts its implementation evaluation to only the desion and interface control elements of the design control program. 'le recognize that the fifth criterion for selection of the systen to be evaluated (pages 4 and 14) placed a severe limitation on the systens available for consideration at this time. However, we understand that shortly there will be portions of other safety-related systems completed, and we believe that an acceptable "significant portion" of another systen can be selected for evaluation. _92rr9 nt & 3@ omcr > suau4ue > rAfr) hac ronu m oown nacu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY v.w mi-m.
( Q. /' br. R. J. Gary Jfj[ y 3 Uhile your selected contractor, CYCilA, appears acceptable, our evaluation of your contractor will remain open pending the final scope and content of the program. After you have considered the matters identified above, we believe you should meet with the iRC staff to discuss these and other ninor coments prior to submitting modifications to your IAP. Therefore, we request that you arrange a meeting at your earliest convenience with the project manager to be helti at our offices in Bethesda. Maryland. We recomend that representatives of both your staff and your independent contractor attend this meeting. Sincerely, m E Darrell 6. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensinq cc: See next page 'O 'l
- SEE PREVIOUS ORC FOR CONCURREflCES 0
.1 R. E G : I.V..*...... " O. "I E
- O E. L. D
- b DLi.d....@..l
- I DL:AD......../..L*
C FFICE ) ,. JQ} e *"". .. 4 .urwe 1/.19....BJYoungblood Tliflo..va k J.T.C.o..l..l.i.n.s....... R H. e..i s..hma..n........ J..Sc i.n t.o. ".. '..;,.E i s.n.h.u t." SURNAME) care y .~~~~~~~ ~ " ~ ~ ~. - ". - "... - - " ~ ~. me ronu sinio-soi nscu eva OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uacmi.-m#
3 o 7 Mr. :.. J. Gary Exacutive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Mr. Robert G. Taylor Debevoise & Liberman Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W. Nuclear Power Station . Washington, D. C. 20036 c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spencer C. Relyea, Esq. P. O. Box 38 Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Gien Rose, Texas 76043 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas', Texas 75201 Mr. John T. Collins U. S. NRC, Region IV Mr. Homer C. Schmidt 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Manager - Nuclear Services Suite 1000 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Arlington, Texas 76011 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Larry Alan Sinkin 838 East Magnolia Avenue Mr. H. R. Rock San Antonio, Texas 78212 Gibbs and Hill, Inc. 393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O'. Box 12548, Capitol Station ~ Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 e e
f; * ^.4%%4.50% && e. f {I p : f I'.m:' n"*-- Q ] ;. :,,, i e 1 .~-q.w.its,W.G '... p)K., : 7}y n-n-~ ~ y
- ,.wr n.
- R p.V n
t yy 4.. w. COMMONWEALTN UF FENNSYLV4NI A % W,. y.E' bEPARutENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESot!RCES ..t"' M ~ ~ Post Offi.c k x 2063 5..w a !!arrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1,. June 30, 1983 717-787-2480 ..s cil o {'- ].E g
- h....
f' g- .y Q secretar/ 6f Ute C:nmtission
- h. *g.:Cr. z.%, W 'g
-t I-- U.S. Ntelbah Regulatory Co ntssibn o. Wi3hington, DC 20555 %~N ~
- Altenflo.hi'.
Iiocketing and service Brc.nch T [ %wh) N' n. + ShueNeft! ^f.7 6 b Correnwealth of Pennsylvanin appreciates the opporttetity to i 66 nent oh the NRC Staff's preliminary finding of no significant safety hMArti bh i ff by GPU Ntitieaiqth?st for an anendmnt to the license for TMI-1 sulmitted and as noticed in thb Federal Register dated 1.hy 31, 1983. TM. Federal Pcgister notice identifies two separate items that heed to be theided by the NRC -- the pending technien1 specific stion change itquest, dhd the appmval of the steam generator ("0TSG") repair. The OTSG tepair and tetise approval is a separate issue from the technical specification thange regtest and is obviously much nore corplex. Becatise of the difference l!1 i;:portanco and conplexity between the two isstes, it is necessary to separate the tbcision making process into two distinct steps, both of which would be . ubject to the State consultation process. As you are aware, the NRC Staff is mquimd to mke a good faith tifort to consult with the Com.:evalth on its finding of no significant tafety hazard. It is our opinion that the consultation process should 11vsys incitd> the epportunity to review the Staff's safety evaluation m ort ("SER") and discuss the report or reports for the Licensee's N opoee d Tnd en ts. We therefore regtest that the safety evaluation v m &: thne r.nrnd:ents be provided for our review prior to a final 6: cPitn :n < r rety ha.nrds censidetotion, to ensun thnt all of our concems a n been i;04 identified and satisfied. In addition, the results of nnv MiirJintr/ icab.re testn which have been condarted should be presented and am! aa te d i: nrer! & additionni assurances that the repairs have been .Rt uf'.c tor. 'c Wic-if this opportunity fer full review o f the sn fe ty
- e. alm-irar b cffe:t; m. we be assu ed that the mpnited OTSG-can be itased without n7 sir nnd reu: pin.,
ngnificant rr fe-hn: ard and tha t a hearinr. en 0 -f the riSGs ir not r =marf. m [ pap, /.00 3 ** 035042 -~. - - - - -. - 90R ..-.m. gg e@hd ~~ 3.' ~. ~T u _ = f.. = : = =.x" ' M ens + ~=:-=-==' - ~ - ~ - - '== i L
s 2-w..a.il b b l u n ,g, --,,2. Jurie 30,1983 ~ f i: .cr. f. -e, i 0 t E 1 O mg g I" L n I \\ (,. addition 31 ihg[jt on f P d subseqtrat ret r Corperation u ^ lia - "" ^ Dr Sith as additien3 lear on isstCS thGt are o i o 'S b C W E S e d CI' M ttah} CCD Ce !71 3 0 rC3 Case pa gg .y IU323nSO to that ]p3);gEU * .in 60*}c1 3
- gg*-
s;"
- 9 71Vonia shou d ineI b iIlenmportsasanecessahs 2TI M vi w the hTIC eare h._[CP
. all future arendments f f -*"8 e hfC be c y nsul ta tion p cess, de
- 3 a 33 7e t)$ MForts fr-2
,te ce hazard 2n connection with.5 [ I."o re"n'T.C E "Clusica en "3-ding aren6en ts,
- Sincenly, J
u M a 17t-{ d,i g, Thorns h!. Cerush, Dimor { Emau of Padiation Protection
M ;L Poz 98tn CoNCRESS ' IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Rrrr. 98-103 1st Session Part 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUTilORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1984 AND 1985 JcNs 24,1983.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole flouse on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. DINGEU, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the fol'owing REPORT Together with ADDITION AL VIEWS) / / [To accompa ll.R. 25101/ g [ Including cost, estimate of the Congresional Budget Office] The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (II.R. 2510) to authorize appropriations to the Nuclear Reg-5 ulatory Commission in ac7Didance with section 261 of the Atomic i Energy Act of 1954 and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization l g Act of 1974, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that i the bill as amended do pass. i The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers of s the bill as reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Af-1 fairs) is as follows: Page 12, after line 20, insert the following: .3 SEC. 9. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 5 pursuant to section 1, during the fiscal years 1984 and 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use such 3-sums as may be necessary to issue temporary operating li-censes for utilization facilities required to be licensed 'm under section 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. ~ Such temporary operating licenses shall be issued in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as ro-vided in section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of IJ54, ll-NiG h _= s S$ M -e -E r ~ f a
m: E 2 except that such licenses may be issued without regard to subsection e. of such section 192. i. [ PURPOSE AND SUMM ARY k The purpose of II.R. 2510 is to authorize appropriations to the [ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 305 i P of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. According-ly, II.R. 2510 authorizes a total appropriation of $466,800,000 for NRC salaries and expenses during fiscal year 1984, and it author-I izes a total appropriation of $460,000,000 for the agency's salaries and expenses during fiscal year 1985. The total amounts authorized by the Committee are identical to those requested by the Commission on March 1,1983 (Executive Communication No. 485). r J The Committee kept II.R. 2510 free of nuclear policy provisions not germane to an authorization bill. The Committee will continue to carry out oversight and legislative activities on a broad variety E of national nuclear policy issues throughout the 98th Congress, and the Committee believes that the authorization process is not the appropriate context within which to consider policy changes to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 =_ or other substantive laws. The amendment as adopted by the Committee, section 901 of the s bill, extends until September 30,1985 the authority of the Commis-sion to issue temporary operating licenses. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION Introduction On March 1,1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) submitted to Congress proposed legislation authorizing app 7ri-ations for fiscal years 1984 and 1985. On April 12, 1983, Congress. E man Morris K. Udall, Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs introduced the bill (II.R. 2510) which was referred E to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The bill, with an amendment in the nature of a substitue, was ordered reported by that Committee on April 27,1983. On May 11,1983, II.R. 2510 and = the amendment were sequentially referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I. The Nuclear Regulatory commission authorization request for t fiscal years 1984 and 1985, as submitted to the Committee on March 1,1983, requested authorization of $466,800,000 for fiscal year 1984, and $460,000,000 for fiscal year 1985, for salaries and ex-l penses. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has recommend-ed a total authorization for the NRC equal to the amount requested E 6 b by the Commission for each of the two fiscal years. = II.R. 2510 as reported, while recommending a level of authoriza-b tions equal to that requested by NRC, specifies that certain funds E are to be used for purposes that differ from, or were not contem-plated by, the agency a budget request. Namely, the bill as reported allocated certain funds to be used for gas-cooled thermal reactor ac. tivities; places conditions on the use of funds requested for phase =
L 3 III of the systematic evaluation program; places conditions on the use of funds requested to implement the agency's regionalization plan; authorizes the availability of funds for interim consolidation of the NRC headquarters staff; and authorizes the use of funds to issue temporary operting licenses. The bill as reported by the Committee specifies a total authoriza-tion for each of the two fiscal years, and also allocates specific amounts from the total authorization for each year into six distinct j line items corresponding to tha n ;ency's major program areas. I II.R. 2510 as reported annorizes the use of up to $1,000,000 in each year for gas-cooled inermal reactor preapplication review and earmarks $2,600,000 in each year for gas cooled thermal reactor regulatory research. The bill as reported requires NRC, in the event of termination or deferral of the Clinch River breeder reactor project (CRBR), to re-dedicate certain funds to be used only for safety technology activi-ties. Also, the bill as reported authorizes NRC, if the CRBR is ter-minated ar deferred, to reprogram funds requested for CRBR regu-latory research. II.R. 2510 as reported by the Committee requires the Commission to report to the Congress on the justification of expenditure of new funds for the systematic evaluation progrim phase III (SEP phase III). The bill specifices several matters to be addresse9. in the report to Congress, and requires that the report be provided to Congress before the Commission is authorized to use any funds requested by NRC to carry out SEP phase III. The bill as reported extends the expiration date of existing law on emergency planning at commercial nuclear powerplant sites. The provisions requires the Commission to determine prior to the issuance of an operating license for a power reactor that there exists a State, local or utility offsite emergency plan which pro-vides reasonable assurance that public health and safety will not be endangered in the event of an accident at the facility. The provi-sion extends the authority in section 5 of Public Law 97-45, the NRC Authorization for fiscal years 1982 and 1983. The reported bill authorizes funds for interim consolidation of NRC headquarters staff, except that no funds may be utilized to move the Commissioners' offices outside the District of Columbia. H.R. 2510 as reported would preclude the NRC from transferring nuclear power reactor licensing activities to regional offices until after the Commission submits a report to Congress on the possible effect of such a regionalization program on reactor safety. The bill as reported by the Committee extends through the end of fiscal year 1985 existing law granting the Commission the au-thority to issue temporary operating licenses prior to the conduct or completion of any hearing required by law. This orovision ex-tends the authority contained in section 11 of Public Law 97-415, which amended section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act. This provi-sion would otherwise expire on December 31,1983. The following table summarizes the NRC's request for budget au-thority along with the Energy and Commerce recommendations. \\
4 AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 8'*"""'"' harm NRCmom! M opp Facd per 1984. hudear reacter reg 4Jon 191.490.000 8 191.490.000 8 191.490.000 0 Inspechos and searcoment 70.910.000 10.910.000 10.910.000 0 hudeer malenas sWety and safeguns 36.280.000 36180.000 36.280.000 0 hudeer regulelery reesdi 1993 40.000 e199y40,000 e 199]40.ON O Program toduncW support 27.520,000 27.520.000 27520 A0 0 Proram erschon and a6mnstraten 40.860.000 40.860.000 40.860.000 0 Tats 466.800.000 8466.sco.000 = 466.800.000 0 Facal year 1981 hudear inador regulaban 87.140.000 8 17.140.000 887.140.000 0 Inspachen and enforcement 74170.000 74 1 70.000 74J70.000 0 huder matenals sWety and safeguards 35J10.000 35310.000 35J10.000 0 hudes regulatory researdi 193.290.000 e113.290.000 8 193.290.000 0 Program techatal meest 27,470.000 27.470.000 27.470/100 0 Progran Grechen and atenstraban 41.620.000 41.620.000 41.620.000 0 l Total 4R000.000 8 460.000.000 8 460.000.000 0 I.a .s a man i. e.a d m ms n.d.,masta. man su
- s. cess kaang se a e, moeu.s i s.
,,,ug,. p e.i.,,o , -,, m. - - o w = 4,,,. .r pir=-n ,.,i.e e., .s e =, u en. Tho-year authorization As it did in authorizing appropriations for the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission for the period fiscal year 1982-83 (Public Law 97-415), the Committee authorized appropriations for each of the next two fiscal years, that is,1984 and 1985. For each of these two fiscal ye_ ars, the Committee bill authorizes a total appropriation for NRC's salaries and expenses, and disaggregates the total amount into six distinct line items corresponding to the Commission's major program areas. Enactment of Public Law 97-415 marked the first time the Con-gress had considred and approved a twoyear authorization for the NRC. The Committee believes that the two-year authorization cycle has inherent advantages and, therefore, should be continued. Spe-cifically, the Committee believes that the twoyear cycle allows for significant reduction in the congressional legislative workload with-out impairing the ability of the Committee to fulfill its congression-al responsibility to oversee the activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the functioning of the nuclear regulatory process Moreover, the Committee believes that the two-year authorization period will facilitate coherent budgetary planning and program and policy continuity at the NRC. The Commission had described the process through which the au-thorization request for both fiscal years 1984 and 1985 evolved: I The budgets for fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985 were developed by each NRC ofYice during April-hfay 1982. This process incl'uded the final review by each Office Di-rector before submission to the Controller. During late May, the Division of Budget and Analysis staff presented
5 its analysis of the budget to the Budget Review Group, chaired by the Deputy Executive Director for Operations. The recommendations of the Budget Review Group were reviewed by the Executive Director for Operations who made final decisions on the budget to be submitted to the Chairman. The Chairman presented his budget to the Commissioners in July for Commission approval. The final Commission budget was submitted to the 051B on Septem-ber 1,1982. With this deliberate budget development process in mind, the Committee believes that the NRC authorization levels for fiscal year 1934 and fiscal year 1985 contained in II.R. 2510 as reported by the Committee are based upon reasonable projections of the Commission funding needs. The Committee will, however, consider the request of the Commission, by letter dated June 17,1983, for additional resources for compliance with the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425), signed into law on January 7,1983. The Committee expects the Commission in early 1984 to submit to the Congress a statement regarding the continued adequacy, or lack thereof, of those authorization levels for fiscal year 1985 which were contained in the NRC's budget request of Starch 1,1983. Authorizatior, for pmgram offices Nuclear reactor regulation.-The NRC requested a total fiscal year 1984 authorization of $91,490,000, and a fiscal year 1985 au-thorization of $87,140,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRRL A comparative summary of NRR's estimated budget require-ments by function for fiscal years 1982,1983,1984, and 1985 ap-pears in the table below. SUYMARY Of NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT!0N PROGRAMS ESTIMATES BY FUNCil0N \\emse su pu-1%E? 1983 1984 1995 333 510 $37130 135.970 135.830 Salanes ard Wts. 41.!07 41.220 38 390 24180 Proram saport.. 1.247 1 650 1J85 1.760 had. .bumstraw soport. 11.579 14.280 15,345 15 870 87.543 94.380 91 430 87.140 fe4 egavs. 738 748 730 709 Peope The NRR personnel requirements and program support funding requirements have been allocated to major programmatic functions as shown below. i I
G " y "* ** M ;y "* * * '*;y "* 6' M,y "* m,
- wi %
w, w, Operateg rextors _ _ _ 10.808 218 11.341 290 9.034 306 9.021 312 I $ntematic saieh e&ata of operatrg rextors. 2.035 42 1.599 36 4166 34 5.166 42 Operatrg kensmg._ 4 434 16 4 T36 33 4 840 43 3.863 44 Casework. 15 011 291 !!]39 207 8145 178 6.895 146 Sate'y tec%2ty.. _ _. _ - 8.507 106 11.490 116 11.005 113 9135 112 TE-2 cleanup. 230 17 315 11 0 1 0 i Managemer.t dvetta and support. 82 42 0 49 0 _49 0 46 r fatal.. _ 41.107 738 41120 748 38.390 130 34 680 709 F The programs conducted under the Nuclear Reactor Regulation I function are the review of applications for construction permits, op-w iz erating licenses and license amendments. The Office of Nuclear Re-actor Regulation is also responsible for resolution of unresolved [ safety issues, generic issues and the implementation of the human factors program. The Committee notes that human factors research is essential to maintain and improve the safe operation of nuclear power plants, and it commends the NRC on its attention to this important area. =- However, adequate resources have yet to be devoted to developing r i criteria for measuring changes in nuclear power plant operator performance and vigilance as a function of work schedule, time of ? day, or other environmental conditions. Prior recommendations have been made to the NRC by outside experts regarding the high priority need for research on these problems (see report NUREG/ CR-2833), and testimony at recent hearings before another Com-1 mittee established that scientific studies are badly needed on the E relationship between rotating shift work schedules and deteriora-tion in operator performance. The Committee strongly urges the NRC to conduct research as a part ofits human factors program on the effects of work schedules and other environmental factors on = operator performance and alertness as measured under real or re-b alistically simulated nuclear power plant control room conditions. The bill as reported by the Committee approves the NRR funding level requested by the Commission for fiscal years 1984 and 1985. 5 E The bill provides specific instructions, however, with regard to the use of funds authorized for gas-cooled thermal reactors, the Clinch River breeder reactor project, phase III of the systematic evalua-tion program, and implementation of the Commission's regionaliza-tion plan and the issuance of temporary operating licenses. The conditions imposed by the Committee are discussed elsewhere in this report. 2 Office ofInspection and Enforcement.-The NRC has requested a total authorization of $70,910,000 for fiscal year 1984 and $74,770,000 for fiscal year 1985 for the salaries and expenses of the c p Office ofInspection and Enforcement [I&E]. A comparative summary of I&E's estimated budget requirements ? for fiscal years 1982,1983,1984, and 1985 appears in the table below. M
7 $UMMARY OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS ESTIMATES BY FUNCTION w tm w ven-985 # 1983 1984 1985 Salanes and benet.ts._.- 138.245 $41.500 $42.390 142.350 Pmgram suppwt 9.518 14.490 14 650 18.130 Admastratwe suppat 7.311 8.600 9.000 9.410 fravet. 4 470 4.690 4.870 4.880 Totd abhgatens .. 59.544 69180 70.910 74 770 Pec#e 959 966 9% 990 The I&E personnel requirements and program support funding requirements have been allocated to major program elements as shown below. EWr ses Ewiu us yes E*'s p Atsgrs Dens Pio Dens Picow Dses Pese Dens Pier 1.589 212 3.472 246 3.223 212 3.597 191 Reactors under constructen_.._.... .. _. 2.771 470 4.754 452 4.593 517 4.646 533 Reactors e operaton _ Fuel facetes and matena!s hcensees.._ l',5 126 1.334 113 1.125 111 885 108 Emergency precaredne:s 2.736 79 3.630 67 3.350 68 1.150 68 Specalced tecrmcal traar:g._. _.. _ l.56' 19 1.300 17 2.309 17 1.802 17 Mantgement directon and support... 0 $3 0 71 50 71 50 73 Toti...-..... 9.518 959 14.490 966 14.650 996 18.130 990 The Office of Inspection and Enforcement inspects licensees and their contractors to ascertain compliance with Commissien regula-tions, rules and orders, and license provisions to ensure that the li-censees are taking required and appropriate actions to protect nu-clear materials and facilities, the environment and the health and safety of the public. The Offfice also investigates incidents, acci-dents, allegations and other problems that arise. The Office also inspects manufacturers who supply equipment used in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants and is responsible for the safe transportation of nuclear materials and its safe use in medical operations. Under the fiscal year 1984-85 re-quest, this Office would show a net increase of 30 staff, primarily for inspection activities associated with the increased number of re-actors in operation. The bill as reported by the Committee approves the authoriza-tion request submitted by the Commission for inspection and en-forcement activities. Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.-The NRC re-quested that $36,280,000 be authorized for fiscal year 1984, and that $35,710,000 be authorized for fiscal year 1985 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safe-guards [NMSS). A comparative summary of the NMSS estimated budget require-ments for fiscal years 1982,1983, and 1985 is presented in the fol-lowing table.
s SUMYARY Of NUCLEAR MATf RIAL SAf f TY AND SAFEGUARDS PROGRAM 5 FSIIVATIS BY ' UNCTION u, w w~ ,,n ,n 4. m 4 sucsse m $.. n s Prag,ner s,wr w v I T )ver (4 ' s0 m gN Dt06I!dtiWP 'a.,SCOr' tJ. I fdi J)iigfQDi 'l' F [N 2 The NMSS personnel requirements and program support f unding requirements have been allocated to major programmatic f unctmns at shown below e u. w., - N 49 s. m .u w. ++ :o r.cmeea x.,
- # Y1t
- P*#i,
) 4 ' ' Wyt*f.or s Mr d Ja 1.r(190j ns 5-4 (a IJ l + sfns: N C7 Wegd1 etMVS P 59 prw'yMr &Vg,hr?;er vg 9 k \\3?99,Al? U ht'pf*fW &n? & ny' uV es %Mf2 The Of fice of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards < NMSS) licenses and regulates all f acilities and materials, except reactors, associated with the processing. transport and handhng of nuclear materials, including safegua rds programs NMSS also reviews safety and safeguards programs of all such facilities and materials. including monitoring, testmg and upgrading internal accounting systems and developing plans for deahng with t hre..ts, t hefts and sabotage at both domestic and international levels NMSS fuel cycle regulatory responsibilities encompass uranium mills, uranium conversion facilities. f uel f abrication plants. spent fuel storage facilities, and waste disposal sites In a letter received on June 20, 19s3 t he ('ommission inf ormed the Committee of the need for additional resources in order for it to meet the requirements af t he Nu(' ear W aste Pohey Act of 171 which imposed sub;tantial new buriens on the ( 'om m ission for review of waste disposal activities Lst of t he additional resources requested would be directm] to t he NMSS program Although time did not allow for consderation of the request prior to ('omnuttee
9 action, the Committee is cognizant of the NRC's need have ade-quate resources to carry out its new responsibilities in the nuclear waste area. The bill as reported by the Committee supports the authorization level requested by the Commission for NMSS during tiscal years m 1984 and 1985. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.-The NRC has requested authorization of $199,740,000 for fiscal year 1984 and an $193,290,000 during fiscal year 1985 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES]. A comparative summary of the RES estimated budget require-ments by function for fiscal years 1982 through 1985 are presented in the following table.
SUMMARY
OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH-4STIMATES BY RINCTION w fu en (com w tinma: fum tenuw w 1982 pa 1983 ves 1984 par 198s Satanes and benehts.. $12,560 $13.360 $12.130 $11.890 Program support 203.365 190.940 182.400 175.800 Admastratne sugpart. 3102 4.475 4.485 4.875 i Trawl _ 660 725 725 125 Tots abhgatons... 220 287 209 500 _ __ 1993 40 _ _ 193.290 276 275 250 245 Peope. g v The RES personnel and program support funF T requirements i have been allocated to major programmatic functions as shown below. 3 4 i W yes Id W Pm E Wg ves Esm g em 5-Doans Pear Daun Paz. Dean Pece was Puxe i Reactor /facAty safety Reactor and Fac. Eng. __ $35.403 54 $37.177 55 139.800 56 $41.800 56 1 Fatsty operatens... 12.289 52 12.257 50 14.500 42 16.500 41 thermd hydrauhc transents. _ 18.591 8 22.034 9 27,700 10 22.900 10 Steg anit heae _ _ 10.044 27 8,231 27 8.600 21 9.100 20 p Rd ansysts.. 15.620 53 14.070 54 17J00 47 16J00 46 ~ * ' Sdtotal _ 91.947 194 93369 195 108_300 176 107.000 173 Reactor acodents Acadent evabaton and mitigaten., _ 35.592 21 47.692 21 43.900 21 39100 21 Less4<oatant acodents. 13 029 7 12.854 7 11.000 1 9.700 5 3 LOFT 42.900 3 15.000 3 0 1 0 1 1 Setatt..__.. ... 91.521 31 75.546 31 54.900 29 49.400 27 j-Mvanced reactors 7.648 2 9.125 2 9.900 2 1.000 2 Waste management. 12.249 24 12.500 23 9.300 21 10.400 21 Management drecten and support _.._.._.. O _ _ 25 O_ 0 _ 22 0 _ 22 24 Total _ _. - 203.365 276 190.940 275 182.400 250 175.800 245
=. +a,
- .A
? e. .s =. In ... l 4 b "; ~. 1 The Office of Nuclear Regulat ory Research. RESi cenduct, re .. l search to s u pport the beensmg and reculatory process it con 3t i L #' M, f t utes t he large3t procram of the Comnurion and consume almost 'J Su percent of the t'omnuwinn tum13 ~ + ' ~ l'nder t he pr<>visi< ms < >f t he Enere3 Re< >rea ni/at n >n Act <>t l '. C 1. ',1.' which estabhshed t he Com nuwion a-an i-ti.. u nlepende n t regulatory body t he Com nu+ ion is prohibited f rom conduct me origmal rc . f 4. j -earch w hich may he s iew ed a3 promoting n uH ea r e nc re s and ? ) therehy co m p ro m ise the Agency > ree dators m t ee ri t y The ( 'om '(. -, a m issio n s c4 >n fmed t o pe rf o rm i ng re-can h w hich independently };,_,y - q;. ve ri fies -atets data and anak t ical met hod 3 w hich are u sed m t h e ,s f orm ulat mn of regu la t o r s -t a nda rds and hcen-me t riter u The ,,) Co m m t wiiin !n ti rrmed t h'e ( lim m it t ee thai n<> tunding in either 4... i :. ti.-cal s ear 19 4 or ti3 cal y ear m ' i-3;ecificall3 reque-ted pu rsu l- ). ant to t he aut hority of Suh-ectior % t' of f he Enercy Rec re a m / a
- .a, t 1-tion Act of 'T 1 HH. Sin as reported by the ( im n o t t ee a pp ros e-the les el of
? 'J e. RES f u nd me reque-ted hs t h e ( 'om n u m on f o r ti-ca i s ea r ! 4 - ; and m3 The Comnut tre har : m po-ed -rw ra : condit ion-on t he u se ut ~ / y ;.- ' (% tunds authori/ed f or RES w hwh were not mcladed m t h" N Rl ' re se' q u est These indition-affect the av;ulahihts < !f fund-tor cas P .-d co< > h d t hermal rea ct < > r-and the l '!1 n c h R!s er breeder reactair I-. y ~ ', y p rojec t w h!ch a re discus-ed chew here :n t his r" po r t (,', s. .t } l% wram in h n u al wp;n al Wi-. '. The N Rt' has rm a u es ' m i -T oui t<>r 'is ;ii sear 's 1 .ind c @.. 3.' .;,0 00" tor h.scai year +- tor proc a n-t et h uca -u ppor t 2,. - .4 I"fS The N R( ' - e-t ; n a t e- <,r the p roc ra rn tech n n al s u p p4 > r t i ',. hudeet req u, remem - by f u n c' i e tr risca! sear-m 1 and 'm are 7@ -hown m 'he tonowing o m pa r so n w aF 'muiar r eq u i re rn e n t s 'or r46 ' i '. *T': fisca ! wa r-P.'and 4.: . ' ^ ' '- s- ,v e. .c LvvAD, w ay. m, o p' A 3 IF... & a v' ' va' .l' f ?f f w '.'.y . + y -u 7 4 ( .k.
- i
- i s. }
- j. + _
..,.., ; u g__., a F The ( 'om m smon nros med i he ( ' n m u t t re with the f ollowmc in. .,y{,, turmation pe rta m mc n, t he ti-ca i year m1 -~ a ut hor:/at ion re '.. p. Y. quest f or program tec F - .o su pport 1"fS 'c The P roc ra m i cch nical Su pport of f u e-are mteeral to ?a. '..~- g [ toe acency - procee if hcen me and regulaimg n uclea r 4.' 4 e f acihtie-and materud-f or the protection.if puhhc hea!t h. ~-t saf ety and environment There procrams are t he Ads nory ~ ' 'N.4 ('o m n uttee on React or Sa f egu a rd- .V RS; the Atomu 1' a,f. Safets and Licen-me Board Panel ASLHP the Atonne ~ , 4 y -
- + ;$t r
t-44 .. '.. s H. l ' 3:..a r
- ;.k W,l
........ ~.;,-. ~. f ;.. s [ - e-
m - % m.# s y.- x.,i
- 3. u.s.......,.
- s ? ~. ~. - T.~.M. ~ 11 ,( Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel lASLAPl. Investiga-J i.e ;, .~ ~., - tions 10l}. Executive Legal Director {ELDI, International .~ Programs (OIP). State Programs {SP]. and Analysis and j' Evaluation of Operational Data { AEODJ. These programs 1.N :, will continue the conduct of and the legal representation
- t... ',[.
+ ...1 at hearings to license the operation of nuclear power plants. Post-OL activities and assessment of potentially sig-are empha-f.4 nificant nuclear related operational events ~ ~ ' ~ sized Staffing decreases from fiscal year i!N redect the e:. f decreasing nunber of Operatmg Licenses to be grant ed >sj each year The following addresses the individual pro-y ..~.,.- grams that provide Program Technical Support ..':, ' = ') ,,'#'~ '3 r.. a s,, a e a na m o er {,, .s. ~ ~ ~ j 1 a s s 1 GF A* ^' i~- 1 w ,k e + '4 h: w 4 ..g l ~ v if ..I'- 4 ,F, ~'N The bill as reported by t he Committee authorves f unds for PTS [ $~, ' during tiscal years 19*1 and lik.> at the levels requested by t he ?.). i. C. Commission _'. 7 "..;B i - Program Direction and Administratton . c: ~ f The NRC has requested an authorization of $40.*so 000 for fiscal ? year 19*4 and $41.R!h.Ono for fiscal year Hb > f or program direction .L '. ~ c' and administration !PDA! A comparatise summary of t he PDA es-i..- a timated budget requirements by function for the period fiscal years ~4 .a.- liW2 *T> appears in the table below . I la N \\ SUYMARY OF PROGRAY DIRECTION AND ADYtNISTRATION PR0(iRAYS LSTiMATFS By FUNCi10N -s r s. , a j, _, r >e. a m r" e+ ,h'
- 5. -
,p e .J - ( Qa's FW-4 4 - r v-s +.,.. ' w,,. w ..s.. ,. + 4' 1 , unw . ;.,... c .y -c ? The Commission provided the following information to the com- +1 mittee in support of the authorization request f or PDA c.e Program direction and administration (PDA) offices col- [.
- J:
.).. ' lectively provide ove:all policy direction. re*ource manage
- y.'.,
[ .a t. y :::f - 4,. t 4 ,I ' 8i,.., y -- _3., -u x y(-, ;, ,f y., _ ;,. f., ' ',.. '3_,,,
12 ment, administration and logistic support for the agency. These functions undergo a continual management review for improvement in efficiency and effectiveness. The pro-gram reductions are in keeping with the administration's etTorts to reduce staffing costs. The following staff offices of the Commission and the Executive Director for Oper-ations [EDO] are included: The Commission: EDO: Commission [OCM] Executive Director for Operations Secretary [SECY) [EDO Small ]and ' Disadvantaged Inspector and Business . Auditor [OIA] Utilization and Civil Rights [SDBU/ General Counsel CR Resou]rce Management [RM] [OGC] Public Affairs [OPA] Administration [ADM] Policy Evaluation [ OPE] ' Congressional { Affairs [OCA] I IN # 9Y 984 sa Dens Puce Dans Fase. Doans hare Doans han OCM $2 32 110 32 1100 32 1100 32 SECY 659 39 1.020 36 1.000 3f 1.000. 36 064.. 27 _ _... 29.._.. _.. 28. 28 OCc-14 26 25 29 5 29 5 28 OPA 2 17 4 18 4 17 4 17 OPE - 45 16 195 18 215 18 215 18 OCA 8 1 9 1 9 1 9 EDO. 50 18 100 21 '. 00 21 100 21 508U/C2 6 8 90 9 90 8 90 8 .RW. 153 146 1.545 13) 1.525 132 1.525 132 ADM - 453.....-.. 393 _ _. 392.._... 391 Totals _ _._ 931 790 2.990 131 3.040 122 3.040 120 The committee approved an authorization for NRC's program di- .rection and administration function that is equivalent to the amount requested by the Commission for these purposes during fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985. Gas <ooled reactors The Committee expresses its support for Commission activities related to high-temperature gas-cooled reactors [HTGR's]. We be-lieve that these reactors have potential advantages vis-a-vis light water reactors with respect to safety, efriciency use of fuel re-sources, cooling water requirements, and a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle. Accordingly, the Committee has designated specific amounts for the Office of Nuclear Regulation ($1 million in fiscal l.
.y ..r.... ,.,. 2,.. -.......
- 1. s
- .m A.. '
IN and $1 nuthon m h3 cal war X and f or t he (H hce of W. N uclea r Regu Lit or s Resea rc h 'W"o" u. tW al scar '"i.unt .y -.... .vea r e. gyon no m t scat wa r N ( h h Ru+< W '!' w.ha .?... m r+unm-t m aie- - -t a t ! a n d " O m "< o ' '? a' N. The N Rl' aut h vai. "hl '"h' i' r I:M i st af 1* 100 bsCal s e ir. !" .imt. 't itI *.H h l T ' b[c, * \\, i tin w < >rk r elated 'i ' he llint h R!s et renier ' nis t i.r pri>:t i >t il R _ ' i' e re;"'rt s1 m p re-tha the c '. : ? c. ,~ Sub ec'o)n a~ VT. th er hn edet t he (1 ,h rca ewnt of terno ut mn >r deterr a! p rojec t 'unds r eque-t mi dur oc. sci wa r m ; and t m a. s no
- ~.
i1 W bir t he ()t tice >t N 1.nir Rnict i ' Reg a !a' < '. - l RhR i r ac a. ,6. a+ 4
- a U"
-av s t e. n. < 'e s mta
- .c
'nitm> be reamtmit ed a: o #cd . '...1, 4. ~ ta~ T h ese -atets t ec h o oa a t u n e n a m'k 'N .= iIlc $1 r t "a-u r rt~t J:s t9,. ci'!It'! % t!I s eae* I .1 - M ' ' ' I I il'l I' rb..- ',f.,..,*~ l. , m a. .a d; i' ' , pe r a t N e x p. '. '. 2 -c a rc h md andard-a ' .an,e 7,. + - ao n i+ a na k - - an 4 u s tue reea:at< rm. e I L.M l.m e.. ; - Ac a l-Thr oam + .o - m :, n- % n na .-n iark -u hm .r a, m w - N ld th y., N.b J N 5. e 3. - wr m de t'e r r a ! o**. Pa. ht ede ' em p' w h + 't r 'h !! H ' .It < >c s i t t - t'inds d J t f i < : r l /1, - ' C - 5.t! idfit'i 19~ M : ( - u
- 7.,
beer rec r-ted n ' ( 'R R R .v. t es ' ~c a n L n .sa i., % e a01 'c - r ex; c-N, HR2 ' i' # r, p. mn. m e- *t, 1 l !.1 A 4 - U b-4 %' I i( .I" t >7 .. n ; , p: 3 4 t,- ata . ;n ,.25 c 'e.-.- ,3 .'h u.. L i -, ;n cd hs e-(
- e ren; i
Sect ; a
- t il R
( t. )! d n ! ) 3.- ) t i ' i -t- .ts.' '3/t' ' li- {H'I' I< I !I c ? -- r ' I l' ),. v .s -t e ma t ic e a: l U. ri ic r. i m SEl' I' h e ;r> - .ta' ',a' ., i, ./. ,h', .7 i -aq the report -ha.! < m' a:r ea n' n m n: A -u m n.a rs o t he f mhc-6 l 2;. V. (k? of t he ( ommma r v1c' ph#c l anti p h ee If <1 : F + SEP ocer b Q {_s ' t h" rec u r n + ' ' ' 'aken ra reu. ' dt*1
- s y{.59 2
wut h a -t at eme r.t . o 3 <if e a t he 5EP av .c expo
- d..
Undme. a statement d t he to-t i . Y, nation ot t 'om o m oin pu h a r. card mc t he n em :t a:n .o rs inder 'J g- 'o >ut pnwe 111 of the p r<,c r a m I' t he ( bmn umm deade~ a m ust . '. 1.. take n> hee Ill. t he re p< i rt n ( < mer~ u n de r -u nsei t m r d phee III and an - .}, 7,,, ' . (,J ontair a prorct ed sched a h D r, >m plet : ".ra ilmate,o t he, >3 t 3 ins.dved -j '. Sub-ect u m ih pro n t h:t -
- h.
l 'o m nu s-n > r. t r<,m rme f und-au 7.7, ' -.,
- u. ~ i thorved hs i h r lem!at o,n t.
arry out phase Ill a the SEP unth ' ~ no calendar das-have pared tiow mc t he -ahnnit to ( on g rer (' } f,- of t he reI> ort ree u t red under 3absn t ion ,V a ut -ect u m
- g... f 'i e
.s i The l'omm mmn -tate-t hat the SEP w a-mit mted m ti<al y ea r ,4Q j' '!C f or t he pu rpore at ar~:nc t he a d eq u an of the desien and
- * ~.(
- i.P. o pe r at io n of rea-tors and to con pare oider re act or-to trent ",'7- ,' ?.X. - saf et s criterut. t her ehv provuhne m t heurs tb ba-r for m t eg o t the p roc ra m whuh
- y. ( '
ed ar'ui halanced hm k'6t d em a,n-P h a.-e 14 .'. i 2 ,:3 estabirhrd guidehne- 'ec h mqu+~. a nd saf et y t opw-f or v,nd uct me 9 7.. -W t he a+erments n. < m ;4 t e Pha-e 11. t he act ual res mw < >t '. i' i dde r 4J r f., operat me pla nt s w a- -t a rt ed m :C and r nearme omp!M o m m - - 2. a/ . '. e.< cordme to N Rl la-bkI )rIls II 0 *( kk' III i )i k 'I ' i i Ei kdIr (i I
- b v
st at e rne n t < >t the -ig nih 'a n t !$ nding-i d pha-e I and pk 11 Ir 2" '~ y '? .p, B. .b. th t- ~. '; y w... y 4 ? 8 'g b 70.2 ,p F y.lc. -
- . ~-.'
- '.g F e
+s.,i.". 4. }* i _ y,,, 4 s 3. y, e
,r; E r S' Nl "i" ' .l r 'l ru l 'll l '.
- rq R
R I l pa r t ic u la r t he ('ommittee d o+ ~ not kruiw w het h r the ( 'o m n o -- n o i be h r vis plants m the SEPare m o re or ms-site t ha n W.r t h..uc h' before the procran; w as hecur sx s..i rs ac. amt t he (' m n o t t ee d o* ~ n. it know w het h.u the ' < n m ra,n s satr6ed that Sin P r a timels and 1 Ni e f f e< ' : s e - W.t s t. det t t rr in, thit
- !ile;
- ij,in's
,i r, -uffi'a'ntls wife The N it( ' ha-reuuc-ted ear's s '. e i nii t, m ;.r sEl>I)arinc the inci scar 9s; -1 a u t hor va' o.n pern d o tsci s e, n -oo ooi i ]9s; a n d.C S n.j u h l n M a! se ar ':WD l'he l '. u n n : n ' ve hc l a s es the l 'om m ss m n - h o u hl bet t e r v t.'s thr r eq u,~' he h u. :r r ap jiriis t*d !.s t he. ( i.nin;)t t... The ( i mm m it t e+ w o h e-t.> em ph is: fr n- :ntent that :r; r e p4,rt i n g ti > t he a ' 'rie re-p,; r-u a n t ' > - u lises t i, n . s ;,. !e<! t h.it ih-a l' an nu-u >n w il! < < r < re k -u m n.a r m the h, 1 Et-p u,e, I.ma II t he El' nien t if y t he n.uo n n o.ind .t h. ,st .11 tta. p r < >c r a n, til <}; tit ,intj ir e is l(je-s u ffit t. n t e \\ [>!,i r;;it j 'l. h,ist-13, t ;r ;,i t j,. 1 r .th!e t he> (' ing re w ?"r n. i nat i' m t<> ! >e t e r. j, t e r nira-u l,et h .e r r rt her.et o m < e, t - p.u t r w a rt.m t ed Ihe' ( in i nl!'I t t' it:(}. r f.i' r c j s t ht-SE }' j;r, W r,t ry, ! ! 1, g ) l ie. ,q ) t ii r j,q j 6 4 l JiI ,II -{gg ] ,l% f f' {f
- g" g h j
Esi a m Pm e r ll{ E P and t he Nat na; Ru ,h:'.t s }c ju Proc' a n NREP mt, a p r,c r i pr, nie mtec r a. o atet s a -, ~ - m e n t - ..? pe r a t. u p, iw e r .r-and ,w ..g t r, s is Inc ti [ >+ ' t. i t. n c +'r-t~ ht' I ' ni rli. 'e f i t j e r f,1,' ! ' f i,i t 's ,gsy.,,- r t-e s,i p;, ,,37-idu ,J u-u, 4 w1 h. 1 r i ma ne*+ ,d , q s;.;c c m d, y, ' ' 't ? r:c jtJt}dt*r
- 'li'
.1-wa ,t- ,s r e 1, g t, ( e. ' s a i , i f.,, j. i {. ig g k ,P ig r r J u..ha li,, s' ' ;- k t w m.
- a.!
})H \\ TF, (',:n t ' e. t. i k e-
- i..
.,f th.
- ,~t n un
'he \\6, n < - ma, e t ce m H,.1 1 a sa t,,,,, r 4 M 'I(S heh re
- r., S u be.n o s t e. -
1 J.m N m winch the M RS n >t ed t h a t w ru :, PR \\ r .d. ,1c s a. h, .! n.u t c.. t. l >, 'u s ed i. p j ; re,tet<> safety l'f{ \\ ,is i t. t1 r,.s,,g i, n!' tn s' it s ;nt! i:Is .in' jxde r:t i,i-j ,tliou-Trp r i i in,ttec ' hare-n:;iny,d t he s lew -. x; ire ,f !n t he M 'l{S t3 .~t; ,s ! t h.it t h+ use < >t } 'f { A h.* - t h + p< t e r:' l,i! !..2-erisce i nd re gii Iatiiry at teuit h m i;r ider.fl.vj w e,i k t ; es 3, ~ , f - ;,c1 ij; y,m m l, ;t ;- -d3cepith!" n h range % it uncer, n n t j,~ t hat r eg u ;a t on de o sn".-at t h s * :m. s h. > u ld ud he ha-.d m .a rc. pa rt u po n the re -u !t 3 < >f a pr4 >hab d ist o rakawes3 ment The ( 'u a t t er acrees w th the M 'RS hat nnn h<,'ihe p<. t. t ii t>> abuse if PRa r.~id4~ m the res u l t - re;at me t n seq ue' - i n, o,r. ic,e! of anals s - rat her thar. r the pL , -i e n s a n a k -~ 1.e 4 'r t he onrain men i a n als -13 l,e s "! ' }O er.i c< > niplet e dem t i pt i' n < >f I'R;\\.ind t he-les e? ut analysm. p le a.se efer 'o the }{e po r t of t h. (;eneral Ac r w nt m c ()ttice }{e3 po n 3e t. Specith (p-i n m-on t he Indun Pom' I 7 )ha b i l i si n Safety St udy 'iA() ((( 'E ] ) O
- 1. - Ws_,
l'or t h b re;&r m t he f l un m it t e+ reoim rnend-t hat ' ui1:t ! t he u 4 er ta m t y a+ onat ed w it h t he de < it Plt.\\ a n he re-ois ed. t he ( lim n us -nin ilm1t l'f{ As he per f < >r rla d u nde r the.NE}) } ' h a se ilj p r < W r.im t ii or any procram w h n h mcorpor.u-the pres: us!s pr opmed Phase III pr4>e ra m. t < a t h. r och anaiy + ,,f acciden' -eq u e n e.~ arid of the phy~ ui ;,r < u rsses w hich n:as mir hd!<> wing : 4, r. damace <n meltdow r a nd re!"ase a t eco r a~ A
[., of Sec t ion The Comnuttee anticipates that the r eq uire m e n t s the SEP will apply to any successor pr ogrmn w hwh moa porates Phase 111 progr:un m w hoh or m part Emergenn plan ning . ;ii aut horin~ As report ed by t he ( 'om n u t t ee, sect ion 6 o t l j R such t und-as may be necessan durme fiscal Shirs 19%-1 and 19su t ai imue an <ip< rat ing !) cense tiir a nut le use the Comnussion to State. onh it it det e rm i ne ~ t hat inct e e xists a that ar power reactor reasonable awuran, e prm ides h> cal or utihty plan w hich ta endangered bs operatmn ut t he not pubhc healt h and saf ety is f orw ard t he aut horit s under cihty concerned The provision carries section 3 of Pubhc Law 97 il.
- uided bs thel'om identical to t he amendment This pros ision is of Pubbt 1aw JT 11; The mittee m 19*! w hich became -ect ion ( bmnusso rn - aut h< a it y. erant ed proviuon expres.sl3 e stended t he 19sn Author vat o,n Act Pubht under section !"9 of t he fix a! s ear such a ut h.irved t und- # mas be n ei e - a n to h>ca! plan Law % 293 to use
'a state.ir in t he abse m e i issue an operat mg license Manacement Acenc3 FEM A > appros ed by t he Federal Emergen1 3 on t he basis of a 3 tate. h al or utihty emercenn res po n se plan reason det er n o n at ion. ( 'o m n u ss o n w hich provides pursuant to a h ;init site t s w ill ru >t b.. ndari able assurance t hat t he publit he;ilt facihts gered by the operation of the pres o.u-k ex pressed w it h The ('omnuttee reit e r a t es the mient of P l. oT 1 109 of P L 9h X a nd set t o,n regard to sect ion nuclear pi mt win hase a pp t wable t< > n a n that. ultimately, esers appr oved state emercenn p re pa red n ess pian w hn h prosuies rea he pubht healt h and saf et s w ill ru >t be en sonable assurance that t reipuring pro dangered m the event of an emergenn at -ut h plantmtend in ans w ay t<, alter The ('omuut tee d oes r u it % % or + ction tective action of 4ction im of Pubhc Law the requirements of Pubhc I aw 97 i5 t hat t he ( 'omnussu,o ha-adopt ed ree The l'omnut tee recoen ues ulat vms in U Fit no Appendn E w h u h require prehnunary con t b. is-uam e of a to prmr sidarat ion < >f emergenc y plan m ne issuesflown er. smt e t hese r ecuhit ions w ere not pro constructu,n permit mulgated prior to t he iruance of t he grmt maiorit s of const ruct um not r ecea vd t he be nefit of per mit s now m ef f ect. the publw hast he problem-experienced t his these regulat mns It e-probabie t hat substant ia!h t om plet e. but adjudwat mg of f +it e w dl be repeated year with a plant t r u es for t he hrst t one. emergency preparedness t onely u n les-the ( 'o m m issio n act, t< r esoh e such issu es m a rnanner The l'omnut tee urges t he ('omnussmn to resolve e,suessoon as prai t wa re latmg to emergenc3 preparednew as under const ruct ion emergency plannmg be under concerned t hat Two areas of um ertamty m current The ('ommit tee & taken as ef ficiently a-po%ible at the hearmgr procedures were disi ussed by several w it nessesOne area of uncertam ( ~urrent h. the N R( ' han and authorit s mto t w o dist m< t agenen~ the adeq uam < >! t he -t ate of prepared the authorit y to deterrnine The NRC conude rs the adtwe r m en ed f rom the e x pe rt f low m er. t her e v as no ness agenc3. FEM A. to make thr deternunation
, - ;. - ;,,.-, 4 ?.* 4 ' by; ,._T g-n g. m.., , = - ' .. c. s., In ,,,y' ,a consensus among witnesses on the and expertise to a smgle agency need to transfer all authority t ! .1 t-r The other area of uncertamty arise3 trom the twhet by some that
- "f,.
gI ~= much of the problem m luth plant 3 censdered m We hearmgs re- + lates to problend inherent m plants Imated m densely populit ed /6 -3 e' ~. .2 . Y and unusual geopraphic locat mm The Committee t heref ore areas ~..e ; ~ encourages t he Comnus3 ton to rase aad resolve usues pert ment to d,' emergency plannmg relatne to ?g location a earh as possble m its review process .%~ inte rim omsohdatwn of NRt ' hem! quarters stall J'. J' f.. ..:.~ E l he Committee con t in ue - to lm 3: -.. ae very concer ned by t he se riou s problem confrontmg the N R( ' as a re ult of the agency i be og housed in
- f -
L -t nme buildings at d spersed
- h. cations P.
? ; ).; i.. Washmaton. D C. and suburban Maryland m 2$. ~ - ? With respect to the prospects for t' mal consohdat ion of the a J ^ Comnmston and headquarters staff m a -mgle buddmg m t he Wa-f ?. ~;o -'i;, shinton. D C metropohtan area. the ('ommisson stated t hat a new W _' X huildmg probably would not be avadable untd the 7 iWns Section T
- fw..
n miended to help brme about an mterim remeds to t he unaccep-7..., ;.. - A table situation that now exists y Sect ion ~ extend 3 the authority and the mtent of t 'ong r ess t ha t M /. - > <.. ' i ~ (. was contained in section 9 i,f t he NR(' Aut hi>rvat n>n Act , i vears for fi cal .l.,.s - ' T i M' and &:', ' Pu bhc 1,a w C Sect mn 7 of the bdl as reported aut horves the use of such sums a3 mas be necessa r s 13. durmg tiscal s cars & ;and P for an mterim Jonsohdatmn of j NRCi headquarters staft The pros mon also prohibits the use of
- i
-.j l ' $ '. : 'l " any aut horved f und to relocate t he ottices of t he l 'o m m ms i on e rs
- 3 rutside of the Dot net of l'olumbia Th t, provmon apphes only to
?.n Q - N "' ; e. interim con 3ohdation of the N R( ' and does not h ireclose f rom f ur
- 4_
h-t her consderat mn any proposal for t he agent y1 huilding s t uat u >n long-term solution to the 7 . 'l 'Y Regwnoh:at; m -s . ~ ~. " The hdl as reported cont ainr an amendment which w euld pre-L wn t t he expendit u re ot f und. aut horved ti> be appropriated by t his i Att to c,.- t ransfer ht ensme authonty f or operarme pow er reactors a' N'R(' to regional t diines until af ter t he ('ornmssim has submitted a ( 4 com p!et e re p< >rt t<>the ( i ngrer < m t he possbie effect such t ran-fers ma y ha ve < n react < >r sa fet s e.' The amendment w ould not 'at tret act n it ies ~. - -
- 3., [ ': '.
'e a,sgr1ed to regio n a l e - office person nel pr o > r t o Aprd A IN or activities such as opera tor hcensme. u ranmm recos ers hcermne and certam heensmg ac- . 'n", J [ .c t n it m t ransferred fm techmcal res mw and saf et y evaluation, and
- 1. ', '.'
- he h mited hmns mg e n a ms for the Fort St Vram rem f or which have been delecate d to Recn e IV J
The concern about extendme ans aut hority recarchne nuclear re "/. O l3.. actor heensma a t hat the t ran der o+ ./ ~ i;cemog a ut honty f or operat- ,q. mg power reactors may have a n ega t i ve i m pact on the abiht3 of 5 ;, .s.- C . ~ the N R( ' to t u ttiH it:- reculators rew pon sib u i t y for reactor safet s and may have a n adverse ef fect on reactor watet s in a letter to the N R( ' <,f Februa rs 'l k t he Advisort ( 'om - .v " 2.. ?
- i.,.
a: _3 m i t t ee t mn-about the reemn al ua t mn proposal and ra med serious . [T%h f cir React < >r Saf ety A('RS rais d a series < >t 3 pen tit q ues- [ con- 'I i, m'< T -, * . p-. - =
- b
- e...-. ~..
'*'[ { '. 5 . " '.% n....; s '. 6 9.;p;:, 17 '. *... ' :. ',. ., Q1 - ,4 g 7% ,M . ' r.1 + f,f.&) <f'g "N -f N ' ^ N'. I . u _ ;.. " l ' 1. "3 +i . g.... ., f4 :) ?v ,F '~. > r
v.- a ' j. ' 1. on the l %C cerns about the impact that dece n t rahzat mn may hase safety of nuclear facihties in a letter dated Aprd 19. 19st the ..; y.].' g' { acting chairman of the ACHS stated .A {+ If there is one among us who fully supports the present program and pace for regionabzation. he ha.s not nmde hmiself known Our concerns are several but all hase to o.'a. ;, do with the potential negative unpact on reactor safet3 j. In addition. two NRC Comnussioners and more than half of the ..s s.. ~ 'l - project directors and beensing assistants at the NRC expressed sine -w ilar concerns about the potential negative ef f ects of regionahemg heensmg activities which are critical to t he safe operation of nucle-( ' '; ,T: ar reactors The restrictions in this provision shall not be const rued as apply-4;.,,.._, i.', 3 mg to non pow er reactors ^ The Committee intends that either decentrahration be stopped or '. l t-. deferred until its impact on safety is clearly understomi. and it is 1 for this reason that the report to t he Congress is required g,f g 7 - -
- :L -
Temporan opero tmg hvense s .r By amendment addmg Section 9 the Committee extends the do t_ V cretionary authority of t he Commission to issue temporary operat-ij j mg heenses (TOL-due to projections of possible delay m the h- ' O'; -? censing process for reactor for w hich construet mn will be complete f
- t. -
f' ~> m "i by September 30.19G '4 Th( Uu.onuttee caut mns that m no w ay should the extension of
- . [.y
.l this authority be mterpreted as a determination h3 the Congress ,. =,., ' q g,l t .c. f. presumpt n ely readv to o pe ra t e. or that any particular faciht) is has a vahd legal clairn to begm operat ions once const ruct mn is i' fr. completed The Committee mtends t hat a T()l. not he issued bef ore '.('-, to the taohty m i l all -igmficant saf ety i+ues specific or apphcable 7 question have been resolved to t he ('om mission i sat isf action Sec t i f". tien 9 provides that the requirements and procedures cont amed m (; y Section W.' of the Atorme Energs Act of '9M w d! apply Specificai g^
- 1. the ('ommisson must find that the tacihty m eet s all require-o j.,.
3 of law other than the coruluct or completion of any hearme ments 4 required by the Atonne Energy Act necessary f or the issuance of . 7. ( y the final operating beense. that there o reasonable assu rance t hat t T. operation of t he f acihty durmg t he period of the TOI. w dl provide f:J:?c.'. W4 ;-. .g 3. - adequate protection to the pubhc healt h and safet y and t he envi-ronment and that demal of the T()l. win result in delay bet w een [2 %.. g the date on w hich con,t ruction r complete and t he date w hen t he .l 2... ' ' N.. - g.. f aciht v would ot herwn" recen e a hnal operat mg ht ense r
- ?
The' ( 'om m it t ee e x pect - comphance w it h the req ui re me n t for 9 ' '- pubh. hed not it e and a pe r md f o r af fidavit3 or -taten+nts to be 3 ,. ll. l s filed w it h t he ('ommissmn m su pport of. or m opposition to +he pc w. ~ Ik tition f or issuunt e ut T( )I The ('om nut tee ex pect s t hat a t enq>o p'... i v. rary operatmg hcense w:H be a la-t resort remedy. t o be e m plo3 rd p; only w hen no other alternat ive is as ailable. and t hat t he apphcant , s. f.., 'b and t he ('ommission ta ke ah pos-ible act mns t o as oid t he necessit y to exercise tho aut hority The ('omnussion n ex pected to recogm/e tc the extraordinary rebel repr esented by t hr aut hority and to exer .. y. i che its dscret mn in -onsderine the un ocat mn of t h n aut horit s ~ t. <4 M ( g ? ~.,, 'e l
- e 4
g.,.,- -'.,y9, .,.(;,. g, w...; _m,.. .,, 4, ,.p,_ y.... & g7 5,. , fi; 3.-,
- 1.- [. ',
), a s. 1 ./ The> (i>m mit t e e d,><m ni>t intend iri any w i3 t<> n!te: the pr< <cd u r es .d estahll3hed in Sect nin ! ! < >t t he l'uhl m I..iw :*T 11 4 i .k n e M f > I rl f;)? th a ll< a! b\\ > rn m le,1> tt e FA + s .3 s*.- The Comnut tee is concernext ah<,u! t he a, sert mn made by t he ma '..'O i ~., jurity of the l'o m m isu o n e rs in.i letter dated April 1K IN ti, 4 ('hairm.in ( h tinger and reit erated at the he.irin e >ri.lui.e- - ' : n. ; t hat 11 pi ec33e~ t he righ t a n d a u t h< ir t \\ ti, n u llit y.i r eq ut+t t< >r t ri n. l f ormation made by ( bm n u3 Hon knel -tatt Y, a ( bmmmoner to a otTice Smce N h'( ' -tatt under t he direct mn of t he faecut n e I )i rm r. s. f or f or ( )perations are pa rt \\ 14> t he ( i>m m b-u m - ad nuilcatiir) p ra ) c+'ed i n g s. It is ba rred t r< >m docuwr:g the f act- ' il cases pe ndi ng beti)re t he- (iim m ss u >n t< >r dec nn m with the-t i,ninisse >ners l' h i - --i 3s F ca l led ll>r' m!ssh tn le\\ e! st.if f. t he ( It ti d ' i >t ( iener'il ( ilu n -el
- Ur 3
t h" ()tfice tit } h il m) f \\ alu it lt'n. pe r t i > r n i the (iimmissain 3 3tatt '. '.~ 1-work f or -uch adludication-Each ( hmnUWoner m addit ion. ha- ,. ? 7 I h ree p r t >tevlt in al. ism 3t a n t > The ext rci-e. ! t he < rse rt ed a ut hi1r it \\ ., ~. f hs a lijmm W3n m ma n >rit s can t heretu den 3.i ( ' im n.* n me r in h r ~~ 4. m.it li m w h ic h i n h: iudena nt is ne cessa r \\ ti tu!ti!i hr ad;udica ' v ti)r) remj u >ns!hllit its ~I h e
- tee rt n >r: <it -uc h.iut h < irit \\ i-thus ;i + ri c aus nuit!t r w hh h a>Uhi atte ci the tul! d e 'i i h+ r.it h m ilt i n d es ant!
?,, ' I s 'a3e-ht h )f t-t he> ( i)r! nllwli)n "$l * ', Ti t he ( iim n ut t er - k ni >w iedce. there ha-beer ni prior a3+rt n n - S < >r exe rcis- < d t h:3.iut hiir it y < nd t here.i r e n'i ;,r e < ede n t-t < > c uide /: t he ( '4,m m i-o m i n t he e s er c:3e < >t s u h a u t h<,r :t \\ [ ht limimlS-lt)n itrgutt t h it Ib < ird.in !/.it lt !!i I'!.ill } id Mi
- i ri l
\\1da the ( 'i > m m i w !(m niap )rit \\ !!a.a u t h()rit) ti > r ew l\\ t dispute ~ re 'I da rd i'ig st al'f rew )u r ce-T!is r e,idinc in t he Itt, ire.in:/.ita m 14.in ie I r n i re ~ the d ;-tint t ;i m bet w ee !) (' 'm n :wu m le\\ el -taff and
- 1. il !
e,' t 9. unde! t ht-dir ect v. it t ht' Execut : \\ t I)ir e t 14 h a r ( b* n r a t o t rb -, 1 ^> l Sin P (.minibmitm ie\\ e; -t a!! J >e r ', r n : t he-r :t ! a! tu ct h m d en -G r!nu that e.ich (. mi n m o me r i .id, q ua te ! \\
- t'rnu d.it r rea~;ri
? ,i h ' t - t h !I .1 J he ' rCe n t.id e - < d I i)ni r!ilv i-it\\t' t t ! Ft 'w ' is t-i
- n r h.ip-
~T .t.
- >e ' rce n t he.it a t hili le-t; tmJu rid rtym~t ti >r l r)l< > r m.it ir iti
.i .e J t ri m-ac t. ( lim m :w h er:e r with.>2 '!a-aJg:t it ! 't I ht - it he r (lim g-m !v h i i - t A !! hi >JC f i nt l'urini;t'e+ tl.u~ ri e - \\ J ee .t it T. i - i < > r ; '.i r be
- o. i t r i n s frei Ue'n \\
the t <m. ite e -.cge-t-t f: it t h< (' in:r 11eli m .i* -.jf , y r}&> \\ t>Ii ij' J)r n il a rt~ 1:!d r, C j! tt ! ir - w !;i. h w ; g t \\ e ' F r1 il irl-it}t-r;t tu n ( > ' :1%i < i r. * > r r etiu -t m !!i n. ( ' ini m i+ a m r it'<i'rtM'! t le\\ el -t: sit II:at ;4 -ij h.i tevjues' - de r:9 vi '"4 t iit u re t he- ~' l (i nr :ois ' w :l! he,il j e - l e. i t , :..i -?i'\\ - le >' t r m i,,i' a r ; hs. t - !., w : r i c.' h a t J>,r* >rt hit e + i n. '+nj1u~t a-l<! h is e-beer unre i 3;ah \\ d b r u jit.i t - inJ<inc~.it'.i i:\\ :' e- . *3. .[ s l'i - ( je w <ald jr ge-f ee gu aled h\\ n t tu ( o n -: u:e r-t he- ! ) i t - i! r**,i~ir ,, i h ' ' ', C r+j'e% - 'd ( i ',r' -i ;r s.g,.} r if f], q % i .ind w:ilid ree 'tu ( 'e a: f:, m t i '.ojuist
- t<it.iIi
. ~ -.( r -
- p< % ; t i,-
M. .1 m, r of-s, h >j., e Se l' f 'u f, l.t w I i '. tig N!v e.i: Recia at tir s ( luri .. " l' nwoo T u t h. ' /a' F.~ a : Y, e * - mo +- au'h.i>
- c..
T r l/e d the (i r i'! ,i r ; \\ t ei j., red f;e s' t !;J l a e r;-e- --o i .ime nd o s 's ,t fier ' ! e r 4.. i t e - e!!m ? \\ene~~ >' the.init U. d n u m t < i n l \\ ,s.... l, i y e.^ ~ 9.1 p,... ;~ ,' ~ ,4 p. ~. _ _ = H. < r g ;,, t r y F, ~i, e :.Dw 4. g'y. % s y i '-;. .,1% ).' - W./ w.% ".- . +.. ' L ?.s s -/. .V ' ).'t. ~ L k 4.:.'
- I x
.h. n ~ - : t : - r v<'-- - - ~..'. 2. ,,;'9, 3...'> 2, ,.:s.- ( 1.: ! 9.,. >e %.N.e .s be ' - N + c'..-, w-8
19 in those situations where the license amendment required no con-sideration of a significant safety hazard. The Statement of Manag-ers accompanying the Conference Report on ILR. 2330 made it ex-plicit that the Commission was to invoke the authority only in those cases where the Commission's standards distinguishing amendments which involve significant hazards consideration from those that do not, can be applied with ease and certainty. The Statement also intended that the Commission or its staff "would not resolve doubtful or borderline cases with a finding of no signifi-cant hazards consideration." This stricture was to be applied with special rigor in cases involving irreversible consequences.imately 2,000 li-The Commission receives and processes ann cense applications per year. The authnriy or Section 12 is intended to apply only to those license 1.nendments which clearly pose no significant hazards.During the June 8,1983 hearings the Committee questio Commission regarding the application of the authority in Section 12 in a specific case which was, according to the Commission, a "close case." The Com:nittee reminds the Commission of the direc-of Managers that "close cases" tions contained in tne Statement are not to be resolved with a finding that no consideration of sig-nificant hazards is required. The Commission's regulations imple-menting Section 12 should be reviewed and amended, if necessary, to ensure that this authority can and will be applied only in cases which clearly involve no significant hazards and where the oper-ation of the reactor would be adversely affected. HEARINGS The Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power held two days of hearings on the Commission's fiscal years 1984 and 1985 22,1983 and on June 8,1983. The Com-budget request on March mission appeared on both days to testify and to respond to ques-tions from the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee explored alleged problems in the procedures currently used to determine the ade-quacy of the state of emergency preparedness at a nuclear site for operating reactors and for reactors undergoing operating license review. The Committee considered the adequacy of the Commission budget request in light of the additional requirements im 1982 (Public Law 97-425), signed in to law on January 7,1983. In addition, the Committee addressed the implementation of au-thority granted by the previous authorization act to the Commis-sion to issue amendments to operating licenses involving signifi-cant hazards considerations prior to the conduct of the hearings re-quired by section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Sub-committee questioned the Commission on the propriety of an action it took which created the impression that information had been denied a Commissioner that was relevant to his deliberation in a case before the Commission. Finally, the Subcommittee reviewed the status of the quality assurance program at reactors under con-struction and in operation. On June 8,1983, the Subcommittee received testimony from ap-proximately 15 witnesses on the subject of the emergency prepared-
L_ N ',.4 1 = k k. L .a k near tughly popu la t ed a r ee the Irulian po m t.uut Shoreham pl ants In New York The S u bco m m i t t ec ima ni fir st f ri>m Senator h Mii) nihan. w hii t plaint il t he
- > r. a ts n in s i>f
.i hili h liad irit rti duced. S 'N w ' ich w-u hi w prm nic n u rha m.sm m t he N R( ' a 'undmg e m e rce n a p re pa red n ess act n it ms t hrough appropr iated naines s reven ed f rom of tetS 1m posed < m n uclea r i n t ilit ies .ilhin ' he state to r equc>t awntance t rom a s a dabh Feder al person nel. m c!uding the A r m ed Se r s ices in t he es ent s d a r ad u.o >gical emi r cen c) and req u i rt the Federa! Ernergern s Management A ci n o ti, perf orm a su rs es to :dentity al! 3uch n.u!ahie personned he NuIulint rfilIIt t-1ls4 beard frtml }tfires }$r.icc ( 'b lt'! b \\t% u 5 e tne Depui s Ihrntor of the Federa! Emercen< y Managem'nt Agena. w hich h# respon u hd :t s u nder Section :us of l'u b! n Law L 9t L "J i fis ;id s l~t-t ht-1\\>m ntisspin t h. st at. < d enit ret rics >,1 ev i n ess.tt ti uc }e.t r T t.ict i r slits Mr l$r;1gg ItSIlt)tMi t h it tht t u rr. n t p r. >; c i r i ap})Tibich ' h ;15 [)T( 4 t n t i I** Nit isf act s irs Mr l$r ice Inti3rnltsi t h.- r-Subcomnu t tee t hat FEM A had apprmed .? tate and, b n.d plans for '~ tao h t ies Ibew - a r e ex pec'ed f or t he rem.urung @ taoh IitS hs t he e ri<i 4.f fist.il sesir 'is-A panel of b a.d em ern ment <,f f in a l-res ponH h!c tot emergenn plann:nc or nuchar rea< t or-m hic h h populat ed a ree discussed the prohh ow
- r. y n #d e n
.u n t ered m pcrt, >r ma ni c of t hei r d u t ms = The (i 'nt-Ian ut n, t r< > m S u t h d k ( 'o u n t s New Y"rk 1.o n c !shind -I.iled th.it mi!I+ r .I
- u f tstiin t i.iI t \\ {>t'rld lt si
! I!rra .irt-It' P-( L. so u r< e-the Suttoik t 'ount s leci3)a t u r. determ med t hat i n<. emer cern y plan u. 4 ld.d iow evac ua t on of.i -u t tioer ' n u mie r d( s unt s re-utents m t ime t. m~rit 'he m s e3t men t of add a n mal resou r. es t r '. m c t. un piemen t sut ha pian The ( 'h.o r m a r <>t the H'>ckiand m ( 'o u n t s Leenlature New York te-titint t hat !! nab.! <t s to prepare an emergent y pW a n d n pa r t ro pat e m the t est me. it that pLm 7 was dm n part t. tia ia k < d.% ta nt e pri a nted t <, t he ( ' >unty hs the lnenser-lis. imrnenr3 w e re endr >rsed b s th ( hairm.m d t he conun mee ,,t r he R,akiaroi (,unn legHatur. a fu, i res mu ed t he pian -ubmit'ed in it:e i t. e n ser- \\ (lo .1 .twri .a r t r<,n, \\e w Y.>r k r (its e x p res3cq r. r n a b< > u t the r e-u ' .t a n e'.n uat ; >n f r oni Suf tii!k (' tu n t s w h. t: w >uld r;s s ils e uniris ;4 < iJin ;> i3 sing t h ri nig t' t he t it s it New bok A j).i tle I tat re h' .tl e x;n rt-t e.s t i t ).wi ',-c.i r< ii r i v t h i> r e.i + > r: 3 t<>r E .ind t he im p;e n 't n' it u m i' a n e n.e rum s pla n A w ;t ru-- f r< mi t he (ier. r a; As < >, n' n c ( )t t h e int med t the pre !m: mars rnu l t s of t ht- -tads t !w ( )t t i,a is >tolut t,nc t c.ir <f;nd flu-i n ti r.no nin.)fthe Nin ! ear heiu Ia t.r s t in n th ;s-i > ri ir1d t!s F ede r.i! E n.e r ve r t ts M.in .ict n a ri Acer,t s ' ^.idir f r >g i ('.t.' !!:t rge r ' [lI i rill! ric [h t ' (hAI) t+~ 1 t itied t hat t hen r J,r H i n. 4hars res mw r di -ated fl,at t hers-are n r it m.s p,r rief b + ' a~ the init 7 : n 1 : < i n t ie ' w eeri t la. ige ro u~ h.i' res < > m m e n ded si m.e hre toine >f '!n p ri n ed !' res The (,A() h.ut f >u nd that a!t ht mgh t !:et e nas beer p r < >g re-u n; c the r es mw. < in d m t ed a O noun stat +~ and<on n orut n~ w n h nw fear pow e r pla n t s w ~ re st d! no adequated ; prep;u ed to n ~ po n f r. a n en.e rgern s A not her panH w a-im posed. d m t e r s e n o r-m t h e hee ns me < ase-reg.ird;r1c the tw. J 3I.s t: t - a fiit 6, w ere- !)e f r ire t!u Nitu i m) t:)i t t ee . i se ~thi}u~ (hm.J t he-.rifersritir-r J > p4 > sed if m e kierlsu n: < d Sei .s- = tum n i n ~4 d a r.i-it a n be i n n r p ret ed t i > pe r n, !n ensmg and < >p E
.g -s.. _ :. s 2; = ( q,
- nuch ar pow er phtnt on t he basis of emergena plans
.. I' ~ '. = eration of i mplementeo by ut d it ies in cir con prep ired only by ut tlit ms or i stances where a hical m state gos ern ment has !udged enwrgenn 44 -' plJ'm mg t o be inadespiat e Anot her w it new t est itied as ti, wr n ius ..1.. concern about recent s uggest ion s to bring Federal t roop, mto out T' i commumties as part (it t he emergency plan ning et ti>rt l tiht) e xec u t n e r es pon s ble for des elopmg and achicsmg ap pros al tur emerency re po n se plans for facihties operated by the .n,y' '4 company test oied t hat state or hical gos ernment should not base an absolute veto' us er t he operation of nuclear pow er plant-lo cated w it hm t heir jurisdict mn and r equested an extension of sec t ton 6 4)t } } li 27,1(i. as amended (Inc exet ut n e r ecom mended u it b hohimg Federal disaster aetance t rom < u m u mt e-w hi,-h retuse l. to part icipat e in all t'or ms tit emergency plann me , -h,.,, p. s. t. < ou virr> F i ossmF R A i n is ,%.?, ()n mas ! N. l l ft .! ?, i l l and the amendment ad >pted hs the , 1.. T, 0 i ( 'o m n o t t ee en Interior and insular A t t a n s. w as. pu rsua n t to the ... ' y..?'T Itules ut the llouse. +q uen t : ally ref erred t o the ( 'o m n u t t ee on Enerus and ('ommerce (in f uesda s. J u ne _: W t h e ( 'om u u t t e. '.d 1 ,5* n sesso>n ;ind tis t>n Ek re) :ind (iinirnere. rne t in 4 .i s i > ice. s, it. i ordt red t he bdi reporred to t he House w it h one amendment V 7 i. g < < > u v i rr e t <>vtk.su nl t i s niv.s l'u rs u a n t to c la u se 2 la A ofrub XI ,1 t h e }{ d es i >t t he llouu - * ^ of Iteprese:,t at n es. no os e rsic ht find.ngs .r r e-unenditons base Ed.f 1 held r una r "is <ne-lieea made b) t he (l)rn mit t et-The (iin;o 1t t ee r the leg e sight nearings and nude findines that are retb t ed .( f..1 t ive report
- d. b t
i < > v v i rr n < is <.< >v F.a s u t N T.,nu A rp iu . g. l'u rsu a n t to clau+ J l a.b u of rule XI it t he Ituh~ of t he llou+ ?- ' C I lle p rese n t a t n es no owrsight ti nd mes base been subnutte i to ( 'omn ot tee by t he ( 'omnut tee in ( ;ow r n me n t ( )pe r at mns e .1-i t < < >v uiri n s i Es riv A rt in comphance w it h c! iu+ 7 a of ruh XIll of the }{uh~ of t he .. i,- 1 llouw ot Itep r ewn t a t i ves. the ( 'om m it t ee states t ha' the bd! au t hort/es $4M nulhon f or tbcal s ca r 15 ; and $4hu n nothon for "g, U t, !bcal sear 'C ,,, '. 1 ( < > N 4, R E.ss li s N A l Hl lH,> t f if f n f ( i Fi ES TIM A l f [. lidl numNr H l( J. in 9'- ? Ildi tit le A bdi to aut horve a ppropriat mns n the N uclea r . sh Itegulat o rs ( 'om m i-p in in m eorda nce unh sn t e,n of the
- q.
f Atoma Energy Act of 1% i and +ct mn E "t ' he Encres Iteo r g.o n -. ag d ration Act of i tC i and f or ot her purpees .A. 1 llill <t at u-
- \\ s order ed reported by the I b >use ( i > n un it t ee on Eneres and ('ommerce. June 21 w 2
i lidl pu rpose This bdl aut horves the approprut mn of 61k ' y,.. ); ; rmlhon and $ 1f.n nulhon for the Nueh ar }{egu bt. iry ( 'om nuwinn .J,,
- N it( ' f or tisea! voa r - !!n i ar 1'u-res pect n el s The+ amounts
.. '. 7 k
- ;,;1,
..n,y. p -4 s y u ,9 + n > "- <=x=,"."..=. ,'.,'a.s
- c. ;
b 'x w
- .e
- .. " 5 M
..r - (p,.* .,..1 g -.., -,
22 are identical to the President's request for those years. The bill also imposes several conditions on the NRC's expenditures, includ-ing a prohibition on using funds to decentralize licensing authority until an evaluation of the issue is submitted to the Congress.
- 5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government:
- 9, ws en e eaan er suu ma
- m im m'
tus Amonnw level 466 8 450 0 bbmaW o#an 784 7 409 0 180 ? 52 9 _ I = The costs of this bill fall within budget function 270. Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed y that this bill will be enacted and that the entire amounts author-ized will be appropriated prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The estimated annual outlays are based on the historica! = rending patterns for the NRC's programs. Any funds collected for coopera-tive research or access authorizations are expected to recover the costs incurred for those activities, thereby resulting in no net budget impact.
- 6. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
- 7. Estimate comparison: None.
- 8. Previous CBO estimate: On May 3,1983, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate for II.R. 2510, as ordered re-g ported by the IIouse Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. A J
cost estimate for S.1291, a similar bill ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was trans-mitted on May 13, 1983. The estimated budget impact of the three i bills is identical.
- 9. Estimate prepared by: Kath!3en Gramp.
- 10. Estimate approved by: C. G. Nuckols for James L. Blum, As-sistant Director for Budget Analysis).
INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT Pursuant to clause 2(IX4) of rule XI of the Rules of the IIouse of Re,aesentatives, the Committee makes the following statement with regard to the inflationary impact of the reported bill: The Committee is unaware that an inflationary impact on the 7 economy will result from the passage of II.R. 2510. { FECTION-BY-SECTIoN ANALYSIS Section-by-section analysis, H.R. 2510, as amended. Section 1. authorizes appropriations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the provisions of sectior 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. Subsection (a) authorizes a total appropriation of $466,800,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 1984, and $460,000,000 in fiscal year 1985. It allocates parts of the total Com-mission authorization to the following six items: E
= ili Not more than $91.490.m for tiscal year 19 'l and $37,140,000 for fiscal year libT, for t he office of Nuclear Reac-tor Regulation of the amounts authorved each year. S1 nulhon is authorimd for garcooled thermal preapphcation and, if the Clinch River Breeder Reactor is deactis ated. certain funds are to tw used for 3afety technological activities f $2) N ot more than $ 0,910 000 fo r tiscal year hW4 and = $7 4.7 70.000 for tiscal year i!W3 for the Office ot Inspection and En forcemen t @ Not more than $36.2so.noo t, fiscal year HW1 and $33.7116.04 HI for tiscal y ear lib.'i t'or the OfTice of N uclear Materi al Safety and Saf eguards !4+ Not more than $199T40.000 for fiscal year UW and $ 193,290,000 for fiscal year MW3 f or the Office of Nuclear Regu-0 latory Research, of the amounts authorved each y ear. $2 6 4 lion is to be available for garcooled reactor reen' e r esean-h and. if the Clinch Riser Breeder Rev< i-deactivated. t he authorved to reallocate t he Nuclear Regulatory Commsv .3 funds to other uses Te No ae than $27 a20.ooo for tinca! year !W l a:id
- io.oon for fiscal y ear Hb3 f or Pr ogram Technu al Support.
F + Not more than $ 4 0.
- 60.000 for fiscal ear Um1 and g
11.62n.000 f or fiscal y ear UW 7 for Progran1 Ihrection and Ad mmistration Subsection :h' provides authoruation for monies received by the = ? Commimion to be utihmd t'or grant 3 and coolwratives ag ree m e n t s Although t he language of t his sect ion specitic ally add ressen u niver sities. other eligible recipients. 3uch as state and local cos ernments and not-for-profit mstitutions. may be meluded u t he ('om nussioni assistance program J Subsection n aut horves t he Commi% ion to reallocate aut hor imd tunds among prograrns provided cert ain -pecitled conditions
- n e Itilled The subsection req u i res tFe ( 'om m ssion to not it y the uthorning committees of any intended action to reprogram more
- =
than 3300000 l'nder the subsect ion. t he aut horving com mittees 5 w ould have thirty legislat e.e days to revww the Comnurioni pro-posed action Finalk. under the pros ison the proposed reaNea i tion ot $ 300.000 could go forward before t he expiration of the :',nof Z day period tollowmg subnueion to the authoruing comnuttees M the Commissioni ' full and complete 3tatement of f he p ro posed act ion to be t aken' it each authorbmg c omnuttee t ransnuts to the ( 'o m m issio n a w rit ten not : ficat mn that the co num t t er does n o' object to the proposed actinn 9ction / aut horim3 the Commssion to use f unds received f or t he cooperative nuclear research program for salari", and expenses am I nociated wit h t hat program Tne provision also a ut horues use of fu n ds received for the material access iu t h o r uat io n program f or salarms and expenses associated with that program 4 &c tmn J provides a ut ho ruat ion during fiscal year 19*4 and E fiscal year 1:43 for the transfer of amounts from t he Cornnusson - -d salaries and expenses appropriated to other agencies of t he govern E ment for the performance of work f or which the ('ommssioni ap _=. propriation is made J '4
L= r P.t Section 4 makes clear that tl e amoants authorized for fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985 may only be spent when appropriated in p, advance. E Section J requires the Commission to use authorized funds to report to Congress on the Systematic Evaluation Program. Tne amendment specifies that the report shall contain at a minimum: a E summary of the findings of the Commission under Phase I and Phase 11 of the Systematic Evaluation Program, together with a s statement of the regulatory action as a result of those findings; a statement of the cost to date, of the SEP; and, an explanation of Commission policy regarding the need lif any) to carry out Phase III of the program. If the Commission decides to undertake Phase III, the report to Congress under this section must contain a pro-jected schedule for completion of Phase III and estimate of the costs involved. Subsection (b) of the new section 5 prohibits the Commission from using funds authorized by this legislation to carry out Phase i III of the SEP until 60 calendar days have passed following the submittal to Congress of the report required under subsection (a) of section 5. Section 6 authorizes the Commission to use such funds as may be necessary to issue an operating license for a nuclear power reactor only if it determines that there exists a State, local, or utility plan T which provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility concerned. The amendment re-enacts an identical provision to that which was con-tained in section 5 of Public Law 97-415. Section 7 authorizes funds for the interim consolidation of NRC's headquarter's staff, except that no funds are authorized to move the offices of the Commissioners outside the District of Columbia. The amendment is identical to section 9 of Public Law 97-415. l Section 8, as previously explained, prohibits the use of funds to carry out regionalization plans of the Commission as they pertain L to licensing nuclear power reactors until 60 days after submitting a report on the safety implications of such plan to Congress. Section 9: Temporary operating license authority.-The Commit-tee amendment extends aethority granted to the Commission in the previous Authorization Act (Public Law 97-415) to issue a tem-porary operating license until September 30,1985. This Act amend-ed the Atomic Energy Act to authorize the Commission to issue a temporary operating license, in its descretion, prior to the conduct or completion of any required hearing, so long as the following re-ports are filed with the Licensing Board-
- 1. NRC Safety Evaluation Report
- 2. NRC final Environmental Impact Statement
_ i
- 3. ACRS Review Report
- 4. Staff Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Responding to the ACRS Report
- 5. State, local or utility emergency preparedness plan
~ In addition, construction must be complete and the Licensing Board's intial decision must not have been rendered. The provision provides that statutory requirements for hearings shall not apply { to the issuance or amendment of any temporary license, but the ?* M .u
25 Commission is required to provide public notice of the application, aLd may receive written comments. AGENCY VIEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C, March 1,1933. Hon. RICHARD L OPrtNGER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Com-a mittee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with the provisions of Sec-tion 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2017), and Section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5875), we are submitting proposed legislation which would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1984 and nscal year 1985. The proposed legislation requests authorization Sr " Salaries and Expenses" of $466,800,000 for fiscal year 1984 ano of $460,000,000 for fiscal year 1985. With the resources provided by this authoriza-tion, NP.C will, as its first priority, continue to place emphasis on operating reactor safety. The resolution of reactor safety issues will continue to be pursued and implemented promptly on the basis of careful analysis of the costs and benefits of the solutions. We will maintain the resident inspector program so that all sites with oper-ating reactors will have at least one resident inspector. To bring the regulations close to licensees and the public most affected by licensed facilities, the NRC will continue to transfer certain licens-ing and enforcement functions to its regional offices. Resources are also included for the licensing of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor according to the schedule outlined by the Administratio i. Our budget request is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis which accompanies the attached bill and in the NRC's more detailed budgetjustification transmitted separately. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that the en-actment of this legislative proposal would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely, NUNz!O J. PALLADINO, i Chairman.
Enclosure:
NRC Proposed Bill for Authorization of Appropri-ations. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROPOSED BILL FOR AUTIIORIZA-TION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984 AND FISCAL YEAR 1985 A BILL To authorize appropriations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in ac-cordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended, and sec-tion 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of IM4, as amended. and for other pur-p %es De it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, L
2 45 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRI ATIONs FoR Fis('Al. YEAR 19%4 AN D 19%5 SEcrlos 1. ia) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion in accordance with th( provi-sions of section 2*il of the Atomic Energy Act of 197>4 i42 U S C 2017 6 and section 305 of the Energy Reorgandation Act of 1974 i42 U.S C 387.ii, for the fiscal years Mb4 and 19s3 to reniam available until expended. $4titi>00,000 for fiscal year 19s t ar.1 $ mo.000.000 for fiscal year 1965 to be allocated as follows ili not more than $91.490,000 for tiscal year 19s4 and $37.140,000 for fiscal year 1983. may be used for " Nuclear Re-actor Regulationf
- 12) not more than $ 70.910.000 for tiscal year 19s4 and
$74,770.000 for fiscal year 1933 may be uwd f or " Inspection and Enforcement. 7_ i3i not more than $:4i,250.000 for fiscal year 1934 and $35.710.000 for fiscal year 19*3 may be uwd for ' Nuclear Ma-terial Safety and Safeguardsf
- 4) not more than $ 199.710.000 for fiscal y ea r 19x4 and
$ 193,290,000 for fiscal year 19*3. may be used f or ' N uclea r Regulatory Researchf i5i not more than $27.520.000 for fiscal year 19*1 and $27,470,000 for fiscal year 19*3. may be used for " Program Technical Support; ' ti> not more than $40.40,000 for fiscal year 19*4 and $41,ti20 000 or fiscal year 19*3. may be uwd for " Program lh-rectio, and Administ ration ib The Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion may use not more than 1 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under sub-section ta # 4 ' to exercise its authority under wetmn 31 a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 i42 U S C 2031'ao to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with universities pursuant to such +c-tion Grants made by the Commissmn shall be made io accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 i41 U S U 301 et seq t and other applitable law 'ci Any amount approprmted for a fiscal year to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory ( ommission pu rsua n t to any paragraph of subsection < ai for purposes of the program referred to in such paragraph. or any activity that is within such program and is specified in such para-graph. may be realh>cated by t he Comnussion for use in a program referred to in any other paragraph of such subsection. or for use in any other activity withm a program. except that the amount avail-able from appropruition3 f or such fiscal year for uw in any pro-erarn or specified activity may n ot. as a r esult of realh> cations made under this subsection. be increased or reduced by more than $ 500.000 u n less--- < 1' a period of 30 calendar days iexcluding any (Ny m which either flouse or Congress is not m session becau ' of an ad-journment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certam or an adjournment une diei pa,ses after the receipt. by t he Commit-tee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Interior and Insular Af f air-of the flouw of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Pubhc Works of the Senate. of notice subnutted by the Conimission containing a full and com-
.,.7,,,_ . r. plete statement of the reallocation proposed to tw made and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such pro. pwd reallocation. or 4 21 each such coranuttee, bef ore t he expiration of such period, transmit 8 to the ('ommission a w ritten notit'. cation that such comnuttee does not object to such proposed reallocation Sec 2. Moneys recenwi by tl.e Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion for the cooperative nuclear research procram. and the material access authorization program may be retained and used f or salaries and expenses associated wlth such programs, notw it hstanding the provisions of section 3617 of t he Revised Statutes 31 C S (' b4. and shall remam available until expended SEc. 3 From amounts appropriated to the N uclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 1:a. the Commission may t ransfer to other agencies of the Fedeial Gosernment sums for salaries and ex penses for the performance by uch agencies of act iv it ies tor which such appropriations of t he Comnussion are made Anysum3 o transferred may be merged with the appropriation of t he a,,ency to which such sums are transf erred SEc 4 Notwithstandine any other provisions of this Act, no au thority to make payments under this Act shall tw et tect n e except i to such exten+ or in such amount 3 as are provided m advance m appropriation Acts t.s N U( 1.EA R R Etil 1.ATI)RY ( 7 )M M l%I( 7 N A N A13 sl4 14 PRt H1 M n hil.1 F8 )H A t TH( >Rl/. ATit )N ()F A PPR(O'RI A To } N 5 l' N o E H 3 E( "I ll > N.% 1 d )F THF AT()Mo' EN ER(;i Ai T f)F 334. AS A M E N o E n s Et 'Tli > N hei (if IHE i. ENERGY R E()R(, A N 1/ ATit )N A ( "I <iF 1974. As A M EN i>Eli. F ls< A l ) EAR 19 s 4 A N n F15( ' A i. N E A R 1%. A u t h oriza twn of' appropria tion.s for thcal reur~ 'm and 1% ; sectwn <a So la rw> a nd exp, n.c The Naclear Regulatory Commission is responsible f or arurine t hat t he pores 3 ion. use and disposal of radb> i tn e inateruA and the consti m tion and oper 1 ation of reactors and other n uclea r t a t i h t ies are conducted m a manner consistent with pubhc health and -atety and t he com mon d ?fense and security. w it h proper regard f < it ens ir<inmental quahty. ~ ~~ ] and in conf ormance wit h antit rust stat utes The Comnussion - procram is compnsed of nm b ar ta ihties and materials bcenv.t e and related regulatory f unct ions msrect ion -? and enforcemen: reactor saf ety resea rch, n uclea r materials safety and safeguard-rulemakine. and tet hmcal a nd ad nu nist rat n e -u p-port act naties The budeet request f or t he ('omnussion is -tated m terms of oblr gatlonal authorit v requested to carn out the responshiht ie-of t he ( o W Wis5H)n Public 1.aw !G-M i. ('oneressuinal Budge' a nd Im p >undment ('~n t rol \\ct < >t !!C 1. Tit h VI sect u'n G C -tates that any request for the enact ment rit leli3!at o,n aut horizing t he enact ment of new budget aut hority t< > continue a pr<>eram or act vity f or a t'iscal vear < heginnine w it h t he tiscal y ear i ommencine ()ctober l!CG shall ~ i he subnutted to the ( ongrew n < >t later than May 1.> of t he year preceding the year in whic h -uch fiscal sear heems Accord 2i R g
28 ingly, this section also requires authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1985. For fiscal year 1984, the requested total authorization for appro- = E priations is $466,800,000 and for fiscal year 1985, $460,000,000. Section 1. (bl.-This section provides authorization for moneys re-ceived by the Commission to be utilized for grants and cooperatise agreements. Although the language of this section specifically ad-dresses universities, other eligible recipients, such as state and local governments and not-for-profit institutions, may be included g in the Commission's assistance program. 1 S,etion 1. (c/.-This section provides the Commission with the au-tharity to reprogram funding among the program activities speci-fled in Section 1. (a) with the following constraint: 7 Any reprogramming of an amount in excess of $500,000 will be reported to the appropriate Congressional commi-e tees. g 5 Section 1.-This section provides authorization for moneys re-ha ceived by the Commission for cooperative nuclear safety research programs and for costs of certain licensee security investigations to be used as salaries and expenses and for such moneys to remain I available until expended notwithstanding the provisions of section 3617 of the revised statutes. = The NRC, in consonance with the Department of State, has en-p tered into cooperative nuclear safety research agreements with for-eign governments to participate in U.S. reactor safety research ex-periments. These funds will pay for any cost incurred incidental to their participation. The NRC, has approved the Material Access Authorization Pro-gram (MAAP) which requires that certain employees of Fuel Cycle i and Transportation Facilities which use, process or store formula quantities of special nuclear material (SNM) must be processed for s access authorizations. Licensees affected will be ciiarged for the 1 cost of associated security investigations. Each request for a secu-f rity investigation should be accompanied by the licensees' remit-g tance payable to NRC in accordance with fee schedule. NRC will i establish a Deposit Fund account to receive the monies for licens-ees,.md from this fund pay the agency performing the security in-r vestigations. Section,1-This section provides authorization for the transfer of amounts from the Commission's Salaries and Expenses appropri-ation to other agencies of the Government for the performance of the work or services rendered by such agencies on behalf of the Comn'ission. Sectien 4.-This section provides language required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 K (P.L. 93-344), sec. 401(a). m ~ r um d'"- muss mm-mmm-n m
29 U S. N t ellAR NEGl'lXrORY COMMisslON. Hashington,1) C fune 1 19M Hon. RICH ARD l (h'i'ING ER. ( 'am Chairman. Subcan ma ttee on Energ, c 'onserrotmn and Pou er. Energa and Com merce. House of Representatu es. m a t tee on Waslu ngton.1) C DEAR MR CH AIRM AN In my letter of June 16 1%3 I provided R of the additional resources you the stairs estimate icopy attached) which the agency needs to f ulfill the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Management Policy Act of 1%2 At a meeting today the Commission. with four members approv-In additmn. ing and one abstaining. approved the staft's estimate the Commssion noted the tollowing-of additional resources. approximately 16 Of the total amount percent is needed for new work required by the NWPA Approximately 22 percent is needed it the NRC's schedule is to dependent upon match whedule changes made by IX)E. i e. it is IX)E meeting their new schedules. m parta ular. domg sites m par allel rather than sequentially for w aste management work that Approximately 32 percent is had been foreseen but for which the required resources were un derestimated m our previous budget request 3 mdicated m the The resources are to be used only for purposes i staff's justificatwn The Executive Director for Op, rations i-to give caref ul attention both to the retutment of highly quahfied statt f or the specialized skills needed and to their alheation to specific programs it must bas e additional re-The Comm.wion has concluded that It cannot be accomnuxlated sources for tlas high priority program The riscal year 154 fiscal year IN has within existmg resources no room for reprogramming on this s ale. m f act. it has very httle flexibihty for contingencies of..ny sortin seemg t hat t he agenc3 eets t he I am grateful for your interest resources it needs Sincerely. N l' N /it ) d P Al.l. AlllN(I Enclosure As stated u S NLci AR HGuu i995 20VYtSSiON N M! AK M SDUR9 5 U YR!Y!Y "i W !! A; A A ASb % O A_" ,~ h i
- {' 4 gs w,'
s '4 as: ' { 3r so' ' A y +- 3 I = ..mm'
-= 30 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-INCREASED RESOURCES 10 WASTE POLICY ACT-Continued '{ is, r. ni 1985 Proram suert. Snes. _.. _..~ 50 3.325 38 + 90 Tots 1985..._... 88 3.415 c, warn g Que en 19a3 m armaam acaw wt uw actas we e we nn Ina w 6xe em lui n v
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES MIKE SYN AR. RICHARD L OTTINGER. EDW ARD J M ARKEY. TIMOTHY E BATES, AND J AMES H WIRTH. GERRY SIKORSKI. JIM SCHEUER l RE FoH AN 1.leENsEs-AN EXTRAoRDIN AR\\ ( TEMPOR ARY OPER ATiN(; l'NPRoVEN EON DITION The Committee extended until Septemtwr Sn. IN an authorit3 canted m the previous Authorization Act for the Nuclear Revola-tory Commission. 'Public law 97-41To which allowed the ('omnus-span to msue temporary operating licenses iTOla prmr to the con. duct or completion of the hearings required by the Atonne Energy of 1954. Under this provision, the reactor could achieve full Act power levels prior to the hearings. The fundamental premise behind this provision is that the re-quired public hearmgs are a 3uperfluous and unproductive unpede ment to the estabbshed nuclear regulatory scheme. Previously, the industry argued that not only were the hearmgs unnecessary to the assurance of the safe operation of the reactor. but that requiring hearings for plants caught in the beensing mor-at Three M atorium resulting from the accident result m additional costs to ratepayers of more than $3 bdhon dol-remaining unpro-This was attributable to completed plants lars ductive during the hearing process prior to receipt of a heen3e to Although there were many who warned of the sand hke quahty operate of these proj( ctions the authority w as included and became sectmn 11 of Public Law 97-115
- 1. IN This year, the industry returned with projections on June of "possible' delays at 24 plant 3 Five days later. a ' revised" list delays at only 16 plants Two was circulated projectmg possible the days after that. and industry representative testified before 12 plants Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power that might be affected by delay Within one week. the mdustry had duced three list 3 Although the t> asis for selection of plants on the lists 50 percent was nat identified. any operat mg beense proceedmg which is con-as a reactor pot ent ially aff ected by tested apparently quahfies
" delay ' 'at least t wo cases. The Commission could only come up with and perhaps m as many as five m whichi situauons might arise. n. M which < thei auth< nty migh t be invoked' ' June i n. IN letter to Chairman Ottinger' We believe that events occurring in the two 3 ears smce the ('om-m made a contmeing case mittee adopted the TOL provision have are not att ributa-that delays in the operation of nuclear reactors ble to an " unnecessary' hearma process g
32 Despite projections of up to 110 months of " delay' no delay actu-ally materiahied because "not one of these plants w a.s ready to op erate by the applicant's completion date ' iNRC letter to Chairman Ottinger. March 2.173 r "Since October. l>u. no administ rative dehiys have oc-curred in the beensing of plants ' < March 2. l!N letter f rom NRC to Chairnmn Ottmger Nine of the eleven plants which received operatmg bcenses le tween Anuary 1. l>l and March 2. ItN. experienced delaye of te tween 2 months and one and one-halt years to 2 years in achievmg tull power operation due 10 an assortment of industry-related prob-lems- < lmproper designs. hardware maltunctions. ete < March 2 1%3 letter f rom the NRC to Chairman Ottinger ' Diablo Cany on iCaliforniai Safety portions of Un't 2 w ere con-structed on the basi 3 of improper designs The NRC auspended t he low power hee me it had is. sued one month earher South Texas 'Texast The NRC and utihty were consinced based on information uncovered by w histleblowers and mtenenors -that the architect-engineer for the reactor wa3 incom pet en t The utihty took the then unprecedented step of firmg the architect-engmeer The plant has been delayed several years Zimmer rOhmt Whmtle blowers ar. i mtervenors brought -uch se-violations of safety-rehtted regu!ations to NR(' attention t hat riou3 NRC ordered a complete "Quahty Confirmation Program" to deter mme whether the plant had been built as desgned and w hether it NRC safety regulations The ( 'o m m issio n has issued a stop met work order for Safety-related construction Midland ' Michigan, Due in pa rt to the confirmatmn of allega-tionr made by mtervenors. the NR(' ordered a hait :o all saf ety related work at Midland until the utihty could demon 3trate comph ance wit h t he Comnusson s saf ety regulation-In its letter of March 11 l>l request mg legislative aut hority to issue a much more hmited scope temporary operatine been-e than event ually adopted. t he ('om miemn stated t hat t he aut hority w a3 ~ represents an ext raordmary and temporm y cure of an ext raordt nary and temporary sit uation ' alt hough Sect ion M extent the pre-vmor provmion. Section 9 i3 esen more extraordmary and esen lew temporary t han t he cure requested m 1% !. snce t he extenston t-based smply on its and ' mayhes ' w it h even Ier attempt to dem-onstrate a need f or t he aut horn y it is le* t e m po ra ry beca u se it ha3 doubled its lonces ity Fundamentally. the TOl. aut hority i-ext raordina n beca use pre-empt mn of 3af ety is-ues from -tate or h> cal reculation is based on t he assurance that 3 tate and local concern-could be raised and ex ammed m depth in federal hearing-Wit hout the o pport u n it s to rai3e -ate 13 irue-prior to t he operat n in a nd irradiat ion of a n ucle-reactor. f edoral preemption of sta te and local saf et y regulat u rn at tultill-only halt of the bargain and is -obst ially ha rder to justi-f. w it h a potential adserse ef fect on safer s 3 In addition. the reactor-w hich may quaht3 for a T()l. receis ed con-t ruct mn pernut-based on a de-ign review of approxanately fit-teen percent of the plant ()t her trues are deterred to t he o pe ra t me hern-e s,ge The rema nu ng vicht 3 f n e per( ent of the plant is desened durine con-t ruction P f -e \\ l N
33 NRC staff are able to review in detail, a maximum of 20 percent of the reactor's design which usually occurs after construction. The a only opportunity which exists for a comprehensive safety review of the design (not of the reactor as constructed) is at the operating li- =- cense stage. And even here, as the NRC Special Inquiry Group into the accident at Three Mile Island (the Rogovin Report) explained: 3' The (adjudicatory hearing) boards do not.. conduct an extensive review or audit of the quality of the NRC L staff safety review. Almost without exception, the issues before a board are raised by interested members of the public who have intervened as parties. 1 The grant of a TOL would effectively preclude the safety review of E the staff review which occurs over a period of approximately eight ? years that it takes to construct the plant. m We believe that the grant of this extraordinary relief should come only after a clear demonstration of compelling circumstances. We do not believe such a demonstration has been made. s-We would note that the public confidence level in nuclear power = is not raised by the industry's all-too willing search for scapegoats 6 for its problems. As discussed, the intervenors were not responsible a for the year and a half that Diablo Canyon has had its operating license suspended, or for any of the other delays which have actual-ly occurred. Increased attention to quality assurance and continued safe operation of the existing plants will do more for the nuclear industry than all licensing reforms, including TOLS. MIKE SYNAR. T RiCilARD L. OrrINGER. I EDWARD J. MARKEY. TIM WiRTri. GERRY SiKoRsKi. Jin BATES. J AMES II. SCllEUER. 3-O k
d 'A i E-mc r E =
9 3 s 4;;gg ~. i; y p!*y 7 wmsy & x }} y ~2 ~ q~ % mW n_ mm p; ;p~.
- gM j:ff,--Q%:Q l&g2 &g.:n-n w
- wg. -
.y . f, dWW:WM e wwp .n v n. NM \\ gya Poz 14 to create an additionallengthening of the hearing process, as well as to add further confusion to the process. The Committee intends to monitor the Commission's efforts to further expedite the licensing process by, administrative means to assure that this statutory re-quirement is carried out. Snot.t.T Auzxnuzxr (Szction 202) sUMMART The bill amends section 189 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the NRC to issue and to make immediately effective an amendment to a license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerat, ion, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearmg. DISCUSSION The NRC, on Alarch 11, 1981, submitted to the Committee pro-posed legislation that would expressly authorize the NRC to issue a license amendment involving no significant hazards consideration prior to holding a requested public hearing. The legislation was miroduced by request as S. 912. On November 19 1980, the United States Court of A peals for the District of Colun'ibia Circuit,in S4olly v. NRC, * * * [2d * *
- held that the NRC may not issue a license amendment, even if it involves no significant hazards consideration, prior to holding a
~ hearing requested by an interested person under section 189 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The case arose out of a determination by the NRC that a license amendment permitting the venting of krypton gas from the contain-ment building at the Three hiile Island Unit 2 facility into the at-mosphere involved no significant hazards consideration and therefore that the venting could take place notwithstanding a pending request for a hearing on the proposed order. Rejecting the NRC's interpreta-tion of its authority under section 189 a., the U.S. Court of Appeals held that section 189 a entitles a person who so requests to a hearmg before a license amendment becomes effective, irrespective of whether the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Com-mittee provision, in effect, overrules the decision in Sholly v. NRC. By including this provision, the Committee seeks to address the concern expressed by the Commission that a requirement that the NRC grant a requested hearing prior to making effective a license amendment-involving no significant hazards consideration could result in unnecessary disruption or delay in the operation of a nuclear power plant and could impose unnecessary regulatcry burdens upon the NRC that are not related to significant safety benefits. At the same time, the Committee expects the NRC to exeretse its authority under this sec-tion only in the case of amendments not involving significant safety questions. Aforeover, the Committee stresses its strong desire to pre-serve for the public a meaningful right to participate in decisions regarding the commercial use of nuclear power. Thus, the provision does not dispense with the requirement for a hearing, and the NRC, if requested, must conduct a hearing after the license amendment takes effect. I
M3 1 3/gfyn4J4iggg - vn y. L an k ?Y y$$W&5h?E .l g ~hyyw~ S,gs q~:p;x:_ w qy v r:m m g %,;~ % p .,g ( 15 N This provision should be read in conjunction with section 302 of the 3 hearing process,,as well as bill directing the N RC, within 90 days after enactment, to promulgate The Committee mtends t regulations establishing standard for determining whether an amend- -ther expedite the licensing ment to a license involves iIo syn!iicant hazards consideration, criteria -ure that this statutory re-for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such determination, State m"EhTch the facilitand procedures for consultati determination with the is located. The sc w 202) authority granted the Commission under sec ~ of the bill does not take effect until the Commission has promulgate ( the standards required by seth W for determining whether a license amendment L Atom,c Energy Act of 1954, involves no significant hazards consideration. I i ue and to make immediately The Committee recognizes that reasonable persons may differ on I ion a dete,rmination by the whether a license amendment involves a significant hazards considera-dves no sigmficant hazards tion. Therefore, the Committee expects the Commission to develop lency before it of a request and promulgate standards that, to the maximum extent practicable draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those that involve no sigm'ficant hazards considerat, ion. The Committee anticipates, for example, that, itted to the Committee, pro. consistent with prior practice, the Commission's standards would not authorize the NRC to issue {. rmit a "no sigmficant hazards consideration" determination for ificant hazards consideration .t expects that the Commission, to the extent practicable, w)dl deve cense amendments to perm,it rerackmg of spent fuel pools. Ioreover, tearing. The legislation was i j and promulgate standards shat can be ap, plied with ease and certainty., cals for States Court of A[2d * *
- n addition he determination of "no sigmficant hazards considera-tion" sh,ouhl represent a judgment on the nature of the issues raised fg v' NRC * *
- cense am'endment, even if it b the beense amendment rather than a conclusion about the merits &
3 leration, prior to holding a o those issues. on under section 189 a. of the itecognizing that the rulemak, g process often can take a s,gm,- m i time, the Committee encourages the Commission to g ficant period,of,ts proposed standants as soon as possible, even prior n by the NRC that a license begm preparmg i rv ton gas from the contain, to enactment of thy provision. In t, at reganl, the Comm,ttee notes h i d Init 2 facility into the at-that the Commission has already issued for pubhc comment rules is consideration and therefore includm,g standants for determmmg whether an amendment myolves .thstanding a pending request no sigmficant hazania consideration./The Committee believes that i jecting the NRC's interpreta. expects the Commission to act expeditiously m,past effort, and i the Commission should be able to build upon tips the U.S. Court of Appeals held promulgatmg the so requests to a hearmg before required standards within the time specified m section 301. . t p ' irrespective of whether the .The requirement m section 301, that,the Commission promulgate * %, 3'nis consideration. The Com-criteria for providing or dispensmg with prior notice and pubhc y a 3 decision in Sholly v. NRC. comment gn, a, proposed determmation,that a heense amendment,, s / '.,, mmittee seeks to address the involves no sigmhcant hazanis consideration refle, cts the mtent of the %<p s. that a requirement that the Committee that, wherever prac,ticable, the Commission should publish to making effective a license notice,0f, and provide,for pubhc comment on, such a proposed deter- .ards consideration could result mination.(The Commission has advised the Committee that in some t e operation of a nuclear power cases the need to issue the proposed amendment will arise quickly, / alatobs.urdens upon the NRC and failure to act on the amendment may result m the shutslown or j b bene At the same time, the ac, p mp,tly m, plant. The Committee recogmzes that,the n,ee deratmo f the
- e its authority under this sec-such situations mg foreclose the opportumty fer not involving significant safety prior pubhc notice and comment. Mowever, in all other cases, the (
iresses its strong desire to pre-Committee expects the Commission to exe,rcise its authority m a ht to participate in decisions manner that will provide for prior,public notice and commen@lgate hr power. Thus, the provision procedures for consultmg with a State m,ie Commission to promu Section 301 of the bill also requires il t for a hearing, and the NRC, which the relevant facdity after the license amendment
mw v=c 1, a 'f ,p 3 16 is located on a determination that an amendment to the facility . license involves no significant hazants consideration. The requirement l ' complements the directive in section 202 that the Commission, in l determining whether an amendment involves no significant hazards [ consideration, shall consult with the situs State. The Committeeexpects that the } i l l following elements: (1) The State would be notified of a licensee's request for an I amendment; I (2) The State would be advised cf the NRC's evaluation cf l the amendment request; (3) The NRCs proposed determination on whether the f license amendment involves no significant hazards considera-tion would be discussed with the State and the NRC's reasons for making that determination would be explained to the State; (4) The NRC would listen to and consider any comments provided by the State official designated to consult with the NRC; and (5) The NRC would make a good faith attempt to consult with the State prior to issuing the license amendment. At the same time, however, the procedures for State consultation would not: (1) Give the State a right to veto the proposed NRC determination; (2) Give the State a right to a hearing on the NRC determina-tion before the amendment becomes efTective; (3) Give the State the right to insist upon a postponement of the NRC determination or issuance of the amendment; or (4) Alter present provisions of law that reserve to the NRC exclusive responsibihty for setting and enforcing radiological health and safety reqmrements for nuclear power plants. In requiring the NRC to exercise good faith in consulting with a state in dete1 mining whether a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Committee recognizes that a limited number of cases may arise when the NRC, dep'ite its good faith efTorts, cannot contact a responsible State ofIicial for purposes of prior consultation. Inability to consult with a responsible State official following good faith attempts should not prevent the NRC from making efTective a license amendment involving no significant hazards consideration, if the NRC deems it necessary to avoid the shut-down of a power plant. The Committee directs that the NRC report to it monthly on its l determinations under section 202 of the bill l SADoTAGE AuzxoursT (SECTION 203) BUMMAnY The bill amends section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, by adding a new subsection b. that subjects to criminal penalties any person who intentionally and willfully causes or attempts to cause an mterruption of the normal operation of any facihty specified in subsection a. through the unauthorized use of, or tampering with, the machinery, components, or controls of such facility. l $$W l kse 2: i}}