ML20155D662
Text
'
,. a t -
'f[ >
PDP( ^
u
/'#
UNITED STATES,1 bd o
/
P'
~$
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C'OMMISSION Uw h
,1
/
WASHINGTON, D. L J'J555
{
g l
Q
\\..... p March 23, 1982 J
g MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Ahearne h
Comissioner Roberts
/
,,f l
t I
FROM:
Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs M@
'h
SUBJECT:
SENATE CONSIDERATION OF S. 1207 i
The Senate began consideration of S. 1207 NRC's FY 82-83 authorization, on
)
March 22, 1982. The Senate accepted the following amendments:
l Abdnor (R-SD) amendment which gives DOE authority to take /
remedial action in the vicinity of the TVA uranium mill site at Edgemont, SD:
Simpson (R-WY)--Hart (D-CO) technical amendment which:
(1) provides an overall reduction in the level of spending authority for FY 82 of $10 million; (2) makes admustments in the allocation of the 4
i authorization of $485,200,000 among the Comission's major program catagories; (3) makes clarifying changes to the interim operating authority provision; (4) makes clear that Section 202, which authorizes amendmentswherenosignificanthazardsexist,f/,//
the NRC to issue imediate effective license 7
i applies to facility licenses and not material j
licenses; I
(5) deletes the requirement for a nuclear powerplant licensing study; and (6) deletes the requirement for DOE and NRC to enter i
into an MOU on TMI cleanup; McClure (R-ID) amendment which requires NRC to conduct a detailed -
technical review and analysis of research results obtained from LOFT:
Hart (D-CO) amendment which conforms the procedural requirements /
applicable to the withholding of unclassified infonnation by V
. DOE and NRC pursuant to Sections 147 and 148 of the Atomic Energy Act; g41 393 860327 2 45FR20491 PDR l
.c MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS.
Ford (D-KY) amendment which:
(1) directs NRC to accelerate its resident inspector program to assure that by the end of 1982 a resident inspector is assigned at each site which is 15% complete;
\\
(2) directs the NRC to study ways to improve QA/QC programs; and (3) directs the NRC to conduct a pilot program on improved QA/QC measures; Simpson-(R-WY) amendment which requires the NRC to expedite the establishment of safety goals; j
Simpson (R-WY) amendment which authorizes NRC to reimburse resident inspectors for their relocation and commuting costs.
A McClure (R-ID) amendment which would have restricted NRC from considering l
psychological stress issues in licensing proceedings was withdrawn when Senators Simpson and Hart committed to holding hearings on the issue when the Court's opinion was rendered.
The Senate will resume consideration of S.1207 on Monday, March 29, 1982.
Attached for your infonnation is the Senate debate from the Congressional Record.
Attachments:
l As stated cc:
ED0 OGC OPE SECY l
}
' CON 8
9 6
e
/ S 2476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March ff,1882
/ *'
D.
as no 1:nger dIpl:yr.bla, Et c larg:p MX was supposed to solre-. Lee,tind based The 1:sislative citrk proczeded to wastecf Fed:raldIHars.
'"l'an minerabmty.
call the rall.
procurement funds for any work con ggg N",g$The
[n"enan Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I ask Finally, sxpenditure cf R. & D. and t
what cost it would transfe..tX missues unanimous consent that the order for nected with the ineffective interim from the interim basins mocer to a perma, the quorum call be rescinded.
basing mode dilutes and delays efforts nent deployment scheme. Thss ' raises the
"'he PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
to develop a survivable permanent prospect that 40% of our most modernised out objection,it is so ordered..
basing system.
ICBM capabuity would remain vulnerable.
For these reasons Mr. President, I and in a aiutarny infertor and neutralised belitve it is militarily and fiscany pru. position. even a.ter MX deployment in a CONCLUSION OF MORNING dent that any funding included in the Y[,*,g*33Q, the interim basing mode 8
MX budget request in fiscal year 1983 makes no sense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
. for work connected to the interim aeoond, riscany. the interim basins mode there further morning business? If basing mode, and for the proposed makes no sense because its east to the tax. not, morning business is closed.
procurement of nine missiles, be re. payers for each surviving MX is about 31.3 jected by the Armed Services 'ammit. 31.45 ballon. This is immensely creater than r
tee and the Manata.I shan work with the east per smivins submarinelaunched REGULATORY REFORM cur couesgues toward this goal.
baulstic missue and per surviving bomber.
I am mindful that those who might la the other two less of our stratesse deter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rent TRIAD.
Senate will now resume considgration tppose my position would argue that Third. from an arms control perspecuve. of S.1080, which will be stated by th) interim basing mode is needed to MI in the interina basing mode makes no title I
dem nstrate to the Soviets that the sense because it danserously reduces " crisis N
htin hk W as foh I
United States is serious about modern. stabDity" and the threshold to nuclear war.
Izing its land based missile force, and It actuauy invites a pnemptory strike by A bel (S.1080) to amend the M=laistra.
that without interim MX deployment, h sovkts, who might wen M1 tempted to uve Procedm Act to neuim Federal agen.
eliminate our most threatening missues caos to analyse the effects of rules to in-Cur strategic position will worsen, I believe strongly, however, that de* before we could use them and it forces us to prove their effecuveness and to decrease rely more heavily on a risky " launch on their compliance costs: to provide for a peri.
plzyment of MX missiles in a basing warning" poucy, so as to "use, not lose-odic review of regulauons, and for other mode which wiu not work would only these M X.
purposes.
dim:nstrate a weak defense policy Forth, the Air Force has acknowledged and a wastefulinvestment strategy.
that it is coesidering other, smauer minan s l
e Mr. President I have articulated h deployment in uw pennanent, suniva.
NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATOR ble bssing mode. It also has said some COMMT*t9 ION AUTHORIZATIONS these views in a letter I have sent changes in the curnnt MI connsurauon, today, to the chairman of our commit-designed for the now rejected muluple pro.
vnss a.navmon aa==- r tee's strategic subcommittee (Mr. tecuve structure IMPS) basing, win be Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now WAaNIR). I have urged him to support needed for permanent basins. Thus any ask unanimous consent that the acti:n in the strategic subcommittee, MX missues procured before the final Senate proceed to the consideration of to address these concerns, basing mode is selected could reoutre 2 I wish to share this letter with my sign, at addluonal cost or could be discard. Calendar No.141* S.1207* authoriza-ed outrisht as no looser depkyabk. at a tion of appropriations for the Nuclear colleagues, and ask imanimous consent larse waste of federal douars.
Regulatory Comml== ton, under the that it be printed in the Racoan at this Fifth, expenditute of R&D and procure, following time agreement:
point.
ment funds for any work connected with One hour on the bill, to be equally There being no objection, the letter the ineffective. interim basing mode, doutes divided between t.he Senator from Wy-
. was ordered to be printed in the and delays efforts to develop a survirable, oming (Mr. Snarson) and thepenator Racoan, as foHows:
Ythese reasons. believe it would be from Colorado (Mr. HAaT) or their des.
g,g, g,,,,
t Conosrvrza on Aansas Smyscas, militarup and fiscany prudent for the Stra. Ignees.
WasMapfen. D.C. NareA 22,1982 tesic Subcommittee to restructure the MX Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest.
B As.Joxx W.Waazza, prograin. This can best be accompushed by dent, has the bill been called up?
Chairman Straferte Forces subcommittee, ellantnauna any anissDe and basing mode Mr. STEVENS. It has not been.
{usseu sie.0/ flee AufJding. Wash. R&Dfnn e tad the d pachs support Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Has the I
i DsAn JotDr; In the past three years, we ag 1989 IOC for the permanent mode; by r,. clerk stated the title?
L have observed with growing frustrauon the Jeeung the proposed. procurement of nine Mr. STEVENS. We have before the nacon's struggle to develep a statisfactory MX missues in FY 83: and by estabitahing a Senate another Inessure as pending i
soluuon to the theoretical vulnerability of 1989 IOC & an enun annarup endible business, unless it is displaced by.this i
i our interconunental bautsue missue (ICBM) system. I urge you to support an amend 1 agreement. I say to the Senator from i:rce. Sadly. I must conclude that we are no ment in Uw Strategic suw-mittee to ac. West Virginia.
eloser to solving that problem today than
- Q188h g *g that bjecti we wen thne yean ago.
those who might Mr.' ROBERT C. BYRD. I thought The latest proposal M pecuring and oppose our posiuon would argue that the in. the distinguished Senator asked that basing the MZ anissue, einbobled in the terim basing mode is needed to demonstrate the Senate proceed to the considers.
to the Soviet Union that the United States tion of another bill.
I is serious about modernizing its land based Mr. STEVENS. No; I said "under ben missue force. and that without interim MX i
ment actuany wiu make us weaker mnitarur the following time agreement," which P
and far less able financially to fund needed g "be'H I have not yet read. If we do not i
tro t
dehse pograins.
. ployment of MX missues. which could be obtain that time agreement, it is my, l
The Fiscal 1983 (FY 83) proposal to pro. changed or discarded. In a basing mode understanding that we will remain on j
i cure nine MX missiles for about $1.5 b!Hlon' which will not work, would only demon. the other bill.
d i
,',"qu
'g'***%" *$hnse p Uer and a wasteful Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the t
ted r e Dne f g
f:r work related to their interim basing. has Thanks in advance for your consideration.
several serious and fundamental flaws:
r.
win remrne. I indi-Sincerely
- First. there has been ample expert testl.
CAas.Lavut.
cated that there would be 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, m ny durbs the past !!ve months that the U.S. Senator..
equally divided between the managers interim basing mode is a military faHure be.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I yield of the bill. -
c r and d iss 1 op
% f the floor. I suggest the absence of a One hour on an arnendment by Sen-l cur newest, proposed strategic nuclear asset, quorum.
ators HAaT SDirsoN and MITCHEI.1, to P
.the MX missiles, in existing. non-surviving The PRESIDING OFFICER. The prohibit the use of commercial spent l
suos just repeats our present problem which clee. will call the roll.
fuel for nuclear explosive purposes.
1 i
I e
g
-w.,
il d
ft l
March SS,1939 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Thirty minut"s en an amendm:nt by
$ 2477 Senators PoRD. Szatrsox, cnd HART on Monday. March 29. and that no call nuclear powerplant quality assurance. for the regular order would take S.
The bill wiU be stated by tit:t.
1207 down. That was part of my origi-The asststant legislathe chrk read Thirty minutes on a technical as fouors:
nal request.
amendment by Senators HAar and Sta:rson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The A bin (S.1207) to authcrize a:propri.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by Senator is correct.
ations to the Nuclear Regu'a*ary commis.
Senators Dowrxzer and Sturson on The minority leader is recognized.
ston in acco-dance with secuan 2:1 o Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest. Atomic Enerrr Act of 1954, as ame:ded, and j uranium min tanings regulation.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by dent, reserving the right to object.
' section 305 c1 the Energy Reorrsnizauen 3
Senator StafrsoN to require the devel.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I say Act of 1974. as amended, and for c.be P05*8-j opment of a r.afety goal.
again to the distinguished minority The Senate proceeded to the consid.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by leader there is no intention to have cration of the bill.
Senators SIxrson and HAar on resi. roucall votes on these amendments dent inspectors.
today if they are ordered. The precise Mr. m i.vt.NS. Mr. Pres' dent, it Thirty minutes on an amendment by time at which those roucaU votes would be the leadership's inte= tion to Senator McCr.traz on the analys s of would take place that may be ordered notify and we hope that the cloak.
LOFI' test results, today has not yet been determined rooms on both sides will notify the Thirty minutes on an amendment by with the managers of the bill, and we membership that we are now on S.
Senator HART on safeguards informa. to the exact time when we would likeare un that wiD be argued before the Senate.
- tion, Thirty minutes on an amendment by to hold any toucan votes which would today. We do not anticipate rollcaD Senator'Asanoa on uranium mill tail. be ordered today ort amendments that votes on those amendments today, but Ings at Edgemont. S. Dak.
are listed in this agreement.
once they are disposed of and the time -
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi. is yielded back they win be voted on at Thirty minutes on an amendment by dent. I have no objection.
a later time without debate.
Senator Ennt regarding Three Mile It Island waste storage, The PRESIDDiG OFFICER. With-is encumbent upon those who i
One hour on an amendment by Sen. out objection. It is so ordered.
wish to be heard and involved to keep ator McC2.URE on powerplants licens-The text of the agreement foDows' up with the development of the con.
Ordered. That when the Senate resumes sideration cf the Nuclee.r Regulatory
- ing, Commission b!D today, Thirty minutes on all other amend. mnsideration of S.1207. a bul to euthortze
' ments in the first degree.
appropriations to the Nuclear Regulatory It is our hope that with the excep.
Commission in accordance with section 251 tion of those two amendment Twenty minutes on all amendments dO y Cygg[Q
,,,j th a A
win be disposed of today with the ex.
In the second degree.
88 ception of the 11:se on the bCI itself.
Ten minutes, on any debatable cauon Act of 1974, as amended, and for The amendments listed in the agree.
l motion, appeals. or points of order, if other purposes. the fonowing amendments submitted to the Senate.
be the only amendments in order:
ment just agreed to with the coopera.
7p NA Also, that the agreement be in the amendment to be offered by the Senator tion of my good friend, the disttn.
(1) an usual form, with the foDowing proviso: frem Colorado (Mr. HAat), for himself and gulshed minority leader are most,
'G the Senator from Wroming (Mr. Sncrson) most controversial amen,dments and That the Senate dispose of all amend.
g0 ments to S.1207 with the exception of,na the $1osi)e p and the Senator from Maine (Mr. Mrren. very technical.
o b
We are Mpeful tht SmWs wiu the Hart, Simpson, an Mitchell
, er heed our cad and come to the floor if M.
[
amendment to prohlb!t the use of be limited to 1 bour, to be equany divided ez.to commercial spent and controued by the Senator from Colora. they intend to be involved in the
- 4 plosive purposes fuel for nuclear ex.
limited to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. do adt. Harr) and the manager of the bm; Commiulondebate on the Nuclear Reg and the Domen!ci and Simpson (2) an amendment to be offered by the Sen.
I amendment on uranium min taDings stor from New Mexleo (Mr. Dourxzer), for 1982.
Authorizatlory Act of himself and the Senator from Wyoming Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi.
regulation, limited to 30 minutes (Mr. Suosos), relauve to uranium min tan. bdent.1 share the views that have ju D
during today's session. -
ings regulation. to be umited to 30 minutes, een expressed by the distinguished Provided, further, that the Senate to be equauf divided and controlled by the acting Republican leader.
not resume consideration of S.1207 Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Doutwiet) and the minster of the bin; and (3) an Will he put in a quorum call and not prior to Monday, March 29.
Provided, further, that no call for amendment to be offered by the Senator charge it against anyone on the bin the regular order wDI displace S.1207. from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hrm). to be Umst. until some of the participants can Mr. President, that is the-proposed ed to 30 minutes. to be equc.11y divided and ardve?
L-time agreement. If it is agreed to, it is controDed by the Senator from Pennsylva.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes; I think that, is nia (Mr. Hzm> and the manager of the bul: proper.
my understanding that if any roucan Provided. That the agreement on the Heinz votes are ordered today, they wDI be Mr. President until the arrival of amendment be subject to the approval of the managers o,f the bDI.11 which dealt with by agreement, after consul.
the minority leader and may be viuated by tation with the minority leader, with the min rity leader prior to the close of time we will take the quorum call off, the intent that they will be put over untD another time. The precise time rd,r,[fNr.N debate on the but I ask unanimous consent that there M on me agreeme"M M enW would have to be determined later, shan be limited to I hour, to be equauy dl.
c Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest. vided and controued by the Senator from I"l0-dent, reserving the right to object-- Wyoming (Mr. Sturson) and the Senator The PRESIDING OFFICEE (Mr.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I add from colorado (Mr. HAsr). or their desig. ANDarws). Without objection nees.
to that an omission, and I apoligize to ordered furtAcr. That deba'e on any de.
ordered.
the minority leader, because it was left fut tie t'e s tf Mr. SrrvtNS. Mr. President. I sur.
out of my version.
tte e
te to gest the absence of a quorum..
Provided. further, that the Senate 10 minutes, to be equaDr dhided and con.
The PRESIDINO OFFICER. The resume consideration of S.1207 follow. troned in the usual form: Proefded. That no clerk will call the roll.
ing disposition of S.1080,.the regula. call for the regular order shall serve to dis.
The blD clerk proceeded to call the place S.1:07.
tory reform bill, and that the only MAmen 22.1982. -
roll.
amendments to be in order to S.1207 are the amendments identified in this Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is it Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I ask correct that S.1207 !s now the pending unanimous consent that the order for agreement above.
I did state that we would not resurne business before the Senate?
the quorum call be rescinded.
l The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
cons!deration of S.
1207 prior to Senator is correct.
out objection. It is so ordered. The Senator from Wyoming.
I I
S 2478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March ff,1S83
~
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Prtsident, I am' censing review process will Nt stand syscem fer 'all operating nuclear pleased to present fer the censidera-as a barrier in the critical p:.th toward powerplants, ti:n cf the Senate S.1207, a blu operation of such a facility.
Upon submitting its report, the NRC authorizing. funds for the Nuclear Second, the bin earmark k total of may then proceed with a complete Regulatory Comminion for fiscal $10 mullon in fiscal years 1982-83 for system-a long needed item in nuclear years 1982 and 1983.
the purposes of accelerating the agen* regulation.
As reported from the Committee on cy's research acthities in the area of Mr. President, there have been a Environment and Public Works on high temperature, gas-cooled reactors. number of developments since the Mty 8, this bH1 authorizes appropri. Based upon testimony wh!ch was pre-committee reported the bill many
. ati:ns in the amount of $495.7 minion sented to the committee, Mr. Pres!* months ago. Among those'is the con.
f:r fiscal year 1982, and $530 million dent, it appears that high-tempers
- tinuing growing need for reductions in fcr fiscal year 1983.
ture, gas-cooled reactors may have sig* the Federal budget. The Commiulon I wish to note that this is the first nificant adventages over the current should bear a share of that burden, yeat the committee has recommended generation of light water reactors, in-and for this reason I intend to offer an a mult! year authorization for the cluding greater safety margint and re-amendment that would reduce the NRC, and, based upon the detailed 2-duced alting risks-level of authorizations in the b!Il for -
year budget proposal submitted by the Accordingly, the committee recom* fiscal year 1982 by an additional $10 agency, it is the hope that this 2 year mended that $10 mD11on be set aside mulloa cuthirization wiu greatly enhance the for the purpose of enabling the agen.
In addition, the amendment wDI pro-agency's ability to plan for the futttre. cy's regulatory program in that area vide adjustments in the allocation of As for the particulars of the bin: to keep pace with industry and Gov. fun ng among majw pmgram Th3 committee has recommended an ernment programs for the develop-8en s udge authcrization of $495.7 m1Hion ist ment of a large-scale, high tempera-I",
gg"ed fiscal year 1982-a reduction of 1 per-ture, gas cooled reactor.
bul. I believe these changes are more cent in the agency's 1982 budget re-Third, the bill earmarks a total of in line with the Cwunission's spend-quest. That amount, which represents $91 mH11on to be used by the agency in r
ing plans and p.kWes, ghn m a real increase in fiscal year 1982 dol-fiscal years 1982-83 for the loss of present budgetary constraints.
lars cf.86.6 million, is to be divided fluid test facility research program, a The bill also contains three amend-among the four mWor program otDces program which focuses on the conse.
within the agency in the foHowing quences of loss-of-coolant accidents in ments to the Atomic Energy Act set forth in title II. The first of those mannsr; 875.6 million to " Nuclear re-certain types of commercial reactors.
actor regulation." 867.4 million to "In-The committee concluded, based amendments, authorizing the NRC to spection and enforcement." $46.3 mD. upon testimony presented by the grant interim operating licenses, ad-6 li:n to " Nuclear material safety and agency, that this program should be dresses the problem of a backlog in 11 saftsuards," and $245.7 mH11on to "Re-continued through 1983 for the pur censing new nuclear powerplants. For search."with the balance allocated for pose of completing the testing pro, the very first time it appears that the
" Program technical support" and gram described in the IDFT special agency's hearing process for a number
" Program direction and administra-review group report, and valuable of nuclear powerplants has the poten-ti:n."
safety information can be obtained in tial fu, extendng beyond the date For fiscal year 1983, the committee this 2 year period as a result of such when the plants will be ready to oper-has recommended an authorization of tests. Accordingly, the committee set ate.
$530 mDllon-an amount equivalent to aside $91 mDilon for that purpose.
This backlog, which can be traced to the NRC's 1983 budget request. Siml-Fourth, and very importantly, the NRC's diversion of resources from 11-larly, this amount is to be divided bill earmarks 81L3 million in fiscal censing activities to other safety con-am ng the 4 major program offices in years 1982-43 for the purpose of devel. cerns following the Three Mlly Island tha f llowing manner: 878.3 million to oping a nuclear data link system. accident, has the potential, if not ad-nuclear reactor regulation, $70.3 mil-Briefly, that system is designed to col. dressed, to impose what the committee li:n to inspection and enforcement, lect data at individual operating reac. views as unacceptable financial costs
$48 million to nuclear material safety tors, trammit the data to NRC's head. Upon utilities and their ratepayers, and safeguards, and 8270 miHlon to re-quarters, and display the data in a uni-Mr. President, there has been con-search, with the balance going to pro-form manner in order to enable the siderable study of these projected 11 gram technical support and program NRC to monitor the plant and inde. censing delays for new nuclear power-direction and adminktration.
pendently assess plant conditions plants. When NRC projected licensing In addition to the general funding during an accident.
delays in January 1981, the agency an-1: vel set forth in this bill, the commit.
Several investigations of the Three. ticipated that 12 plants wouLi be de-tee has further recommended that cer. Mile Island h,ccident pointed out the layed a total of 90 months. A number tain funds be earmarked for expendi-lack of timely and accurate informa-of factom have changed those early i
ture by the agency in four specific tion available to NRC's-headquarters projections of delay rather dramatical-artas: First, the bill sets aside $27 mil-personnel and, in particular, the seri-ly. First I think it is very fair to say.
lion far fast. breeder reactor safety re-ous shortcomings of an emergency that some of the utility projections of search and licensing review work to be communication system. that relles plant construction completion.were i
conducted in each fiscal year. These upon people to determine and commu-overly optimistic.14ngthening con-funds are to be'used by the agency for nicate critical technical plant data, struction periods have, therefore.
the purpose of estab!!shing a regula-The committee has long supported eliminated a portion of the expected tcry framework for the licensing of efforts to improve NRC's ability to delays.
I fast-breeder reactors.
communicate with the licensee during Second, the Commluton has done Of the $27 minion specifically set an emergency, and has, accordingly, much to accelerate its licensing pro-aside by the committee,820.4 million earmarked $11.3 million for the nucle-gram, both by directing additional has been earmarked for use by the ar data link proposal. The bin specif!- effort to licensing reviews and* by Office of Research to expand its cally provides, however, that the Com-adopting a number of administrative 1
review of the safety aspects of fast-mission shall not l' ave more than $1 reforms to eliminate unnecessary breeder technology. It is the intent of million in fise41 years 1982-83 until delays in staff reviews and licensing the committee that the NRC have the the Commissi'an has established a pro-hearings. I believe the Commission has l
capability to license any breeder reac-totype data ilnk system, and, upon as-been most responsive here, while pre-ter intended to demonstrate the com-sessing the results of the prototype, serving its paramount responsibility to mercial workab!!!ty of breeder tech-has submitted a report to Congress protect the public health and safety.
nology. The funds set aside for this containing a Commission recommen-Third, several plants in the interim purpose would insure the NRC's 11-dation on implementing a specific have now received their full operating 7
March SS,1SSS CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 24,79 licens:s. thereby eliminating any fur-thIr delay pot;nti-1 in those cases. As cense c.fter the illing of the Advisory public hearing, chere it detirmines Committ".e on Re ctor Sr.feguards that such amendments pose "no sig-a result. Mr. President, the Commis-report, the NRC staff safety report. nificant hazards consideration." Al-sion's latest report to the Congress on the NRC staff environmental state-though the NRC has for years, inter.
potential reactor licensing delays an.
ticipates that only one plant will expe. ment, and a State, local, or utnity preted the Atornie Energy Act to au-emergency preparedness plan. The rience any delay, and that delay is ex. NRC is required to provide notice of thorize the issuance of such amend-pected to be limited to 2 months.
the petition and a 30-day period for ments without holding a prior hearing, a recent D.C. court'of appeals decision.
Mr. President, the result ' of this public comment. This is a very critical the Sholly' decision, struck down the latest report from the Commission are and important part of the procedure. agency's interpretation of the act.
most personaUy gratifying to me. Upon expiration of the 30-day com-Some mayf therefore, suggest-if I ment period, the NRC may issue the l By including this amendment, the might anticipate a b!t-that we might interim operating Deense if it deter-committee seeks to address the con-no longer need that authority in the bul to issue interim operating licenses. mines that: first, au requirements of cern expressed by the Committion in I do not believe that is so. I do not be-law other than the conduct or comple-its recent testimony that a require-tion of any required hearing are met; ment that the NRC grant a requested lleve that is the case for several rea. second, there is reasonable assurance hearing prior to mning effective a fa-Fust, the present Committion pro-that interim operation of the facility cility license amendment invohing no sons.
significant hazards consideration "
jections of very limited delays assumes in accordance with the terms of the 11-cense wul provide adequate protection could result in unnecessary disruption a very ambitious licensing schedule by to the public health and safety and or delay in the operation of a nuclear the Co==1ssion for the next 2 years.
if the Committlon meets its present the environment, which is the sole powerplant and could impose unnec-projections, it wiu license in each of mission of the Nuclear Regulatory essary regulatory burdens upon the Cc= mission; and third, denial of the NRC that are not related to signift-the next 2 years more than twice the interir.s license win result in delay be-cant safety benefits, number cf new reactor operating 11-tween the time when the facility is lIt is for these reasons that the ecm-censes than have ever been issued by sufficiently conspleted to permit inter-mittee recommends that the Atomic NRC in a single year. Mr. President, I im operation and the time when a Energy Act be amended to authorize bebeve it is wise and appropriate to final operating license would other-the NRC to issue license' amendments
}
have the interim operating authority wise be issued.
- tposing no significant hazards consid.
i rxailable as a backup over the next 2 The amendment further provides eration" without first holding a pubuc years in the event the Committ!on's that an applicant's initial petition for hearbg" ld be n projected schedule proves to be overly interim operating license authority Sshou hat, in deci g I
cptimistic-Second, the interim operating au-shall be limited to 5 percent power.
dh Upon approval by the NRC of the ap-D03.*no significant hazards consider.
thority provides a useful safeguard to plicant's petition for interim operation ation,, this amendment required that -
txcid pressures that might otherwise at 5 percent power, the appUcant may the NRC consult with the State in cxist to accelerate the licensing proc-then petition for interim operation at which the particular facility is located.
ess for these plants at the expense of increased power levels. Separate peti. The committee fully expects that con-safety. Should problems arise in a tions from the utility, notice and sultation with the State will be the given case that require further study, the availabiUty of the interim licens-pubuc comment periods, and determi. Tule, rather than the exception, but in nations by the NRC are required how. those instances where prior consulta-l ing authority should remove any inor-ever, before the Commission can allow ti n is virtuaUy impossible and the e
dinate pressures to hurry the review of operation at each succeeding power plant is threatened with shutdown
.I those issues in the hearing process as level, junless the amendment is grpnted, the soon as possible to avoid a I! censing The a, men'dment also includes a ;NRC has further options under this d;1ay.The availability of this authori-number of procedural safeguards to amendment.
I' ty should help assure that the Com-insure that the issuance of the interim In addition, it should be noted that mission will give all these applications operating Ucense does not prejudge !the authority granted the NRC under a thorough review without imposing the outcome of the Ucensing hearing lthis amendment will not take effect unnecessary economic costs on the for the final operating license or prej-, regulations establishing F% for untu the Commission has promulgated
}
ratepayers. I believe this concept of udice the rights of any party to the i using this authority as a safeguard in hearing to raise any issue in the hear-determining whether an amendment those few cases where it may be ing an' d to have that issue decided. In to a license involves no significant haz-nieded is entirely consistent with the add! tion. the amendment requires that,ards consideration.
committee's intent. In fact, the provi-s!!n itself directs the Commfttion to any party to the hearing or any Lt.
Finally, the NRC is required, under censing Board member conducting the title III of this bill, to promulgate reg.
take all appropriate administrative hearing prornptly notify the Comm!s.
ulations establishing criteria for pro-steps to mWmfm the need for issuing sion of any information indicating viding or dispensing with prior notice interim operating licenses under this that the terms and conditions of the } hazards and public comment on no significant authority, interim operating license are not being consideration" determina-Mr. President..for the foregoing rea-met.
sons, the comm!ttee has recommended Moreover, the amendment provides ;j tions, and procedures for consultation on such determinations with the State that the Atomic Energy Act be amend-that, if the appilcant is not prosecut-l in which the facility !s located.
cd to permit the NRC through 1983 to ing its application for the final operat. ' The third and final amendment to issue interim operating licenses, prior ing Ucense with due dDigence the in. the Atomic Energy Act contained in to the completion of any required terim tperating Utense shall be sus. this bill deals with the sabotage of nu-hearing.
pended.
clear faculties. Section 236 of the The amendment set forth in this bill FinaUy, as I mentioned earlfer, the Atomic Energy Act now provides that establishes, however, a very detailed Commission is directed under the any person Who intent!onaDy and wiu-procedural frarnework for granting amendment to adopt those administra. Iully destroys or causes physical such licenses that is patterned after a tive remedies deemed necessary to damage to, or attempts'to destroy or similar provision in the Atomic Energy minimize the need for issuance of in-cause physical damage to, a nuclear fa.
I Act that authorized the Commission terim operating licenses.
cility shall be fined up to $10,000, im-i to issue such licenses up until October The second amendment recommend. prisoned for not rnore than 10 years, 30.1973. Briefly, the amendment pro-ed by the committee in this bill au. or both.
vides that an applicant may petition thorizes the NRC to issue amendments That provision does not cover the the NRC for an Interim operating !!- to 11 censes without.first holding i
situation fn which a person intention-a i
s
(
S 2480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 29,1989
(
clly and wiufully int;rrupts a power.
The pr:visi:n con't-Ins several im-t plant's op; rat 1In by mtrely tamp; ring with tr improperly using. rather than portant restriction. on the NRC's au-of the nuclear industry paintcd n c thority to issue., rtm operating 11-picture of increases in licensing delays physically damaging or destroying, the censes. First, the.. tal interim oper-as time went on, imposing additional machinery, components, or controls of. ating license must t,e limited to power costs of several billion dollars on util.
{
the plant. Because such acts could levels no creater than 5 percent of ity ratepayers, result in substantial replacement full. rated thermal power. Second, if a That presentation was 10 months power costs to a utluty and its custom-utility seeks an interim Ucense to oper. ago. However, the most recent NRC ers, and may endanger the public ate the reactor at power levels greater report on license delays, issued 2 health and safety, the committee rec. than 5 percent,it must formally peti-weeks ago, shows a dramatic decrease ommends amendment of the Atomic tion the Committfon to amend the in. in license delays to only 2 months..
Energy Act to include this situation.
terim operating Ucense to allow the Several factors undoubtedly have This provision is essentiaUy the operation of the powerplant in staged contributed to the reduction in licens.
same as an amendment to the 1981 increases at specific power levels set ing delays. The NRC has implemented NRC authorir.ation biU accepted by by the NRC.
administrative changes *n its regula-the Senate, but not enacted as law.
Third, the NRC may issue an inter' tory processes. In addition, the nuclear That, hrlefly, is a summary of the im operating license at 5 percent industry in several cases was too measure proposed to the Senate. It power, or an amendment to the license overly optimistic in estimating the has been considered now for the many for operation at greater power levels-dates for completion of construction weeks that it has been before the but only if it finds three things: First, on several nuclear powerplants. For body. There are two amendments that in all respects other than the con-example, last spring Diablo Canyon under the time agreement that wlU duct or completion of any required had an estimated Ucense delay of 12 come up later, hearing, the requirements of law are months. Subsequent events revealed At this moment I want to signify met. Second, that there is reasonable serious deficiencies in construction of how much I appreciate the work of my assurance that operation of the power-the Diablo Canyon plant which concague, the ranking minority plant during the interim period wiU pushed farther into the future the member of this subcommittee, Senator provide adequate protection to public date for completion of construction Gar Ear, my neighbor from Colora. health and safety and the endron-and removed Diablo Canyon from the do. He has been extraordinarily sup. ment. Third, that denial of the interim licensing delay category altogether
- portive and helpful, as have his staff, operating license will result in a delay Mr. President, the fact nevertheless and the full committee. The steady between the date on which construc. remains that last spring the nuclear counsel of Senator STArFoRD should tion of the powerplant is completed, in industry cried wolf with its estimates also be recognized, the chairman of the NPCs judgment, and the date the of Ucensing delays and demanded the fuU committee, and the rmHnr final operating license would other-keUe ro the l
member of the full committee, the wise issue.
e d ap es b Senator from West Virgirua (JesNIncs In my view, this last requ!re'nent exist now. Fortunately the Environ-RANDOt.rH) does not authorize the NRC to issue rnent and PubHc Works Committee The entire staff, the majority and an interim license when the utility, by carefully deliberated on what type of minority staffs, has been more.than fa!Ung to make a reasonable effort to legislative relief it would grant the nu-helpful, as I say, in the drafting, in the presentation, and in the amending meet the requirements of the licensing clear industry. It developed a reason,
process in a timely manner, substan-able provision that did no,t overreact
- process, Mr. President, at this time I yield to tiaHy delays completion of that proc. to the nuclear industrys extreme ess. In other words, a utility should claims. Indeed, because a utulty must my coUeague from Colorado. Senator not be able to obtain an interim oper-demonstrate the need for an interim HAxT.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ating license by unreasonably delaying operationg Meense, and given the virtu.
Senator from Colorado is recognized.
its appucation for a final operation li-al enmination of licensing delays. It is cense.
Very conceivable that the authority in Mr. HART. Mr. President, I join The final restriction in this provi-this provision w!U never be invoked.
with the distinguished Senator from slon is the automatic termination, on The experience with this provision Wyoming, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, ' December 31,1983, of the NRC's au should serve as a lesson for future de-in urging the Senate to pass the NRC thority to grant interim operating 11-cisions by the Congress on reform of censes.
the NRC's regulatory processes. WhDe Authorization Art for fiscal years 1982 I recognize and strongly support the we should willingly consider reason-and 1983, as reported by the Environ. need for the public to have a meaning.
ment and PubUc Works Committee. ful opportunity to participate in NRC able proposals for regulatory reform, Needless to say, this b!11 represents we should also avoid knee-jerk re-many hours of negotiations among the decisions on licensing nuclear power, sponses to cries of wolf" similar to plants for operation. Because of this I the one we heard from the nuclear in-members and staff of the committee have been extremely reluctant to dustry last spring.
to produce a b!Il the members could accept legislative changes in the Mr. President, I again urge the accept unanimously.
NRC's regulatory regime that could Senate to pass this bill.
I think that is the important consid.
cration as the full Senate undertakes short circuit mechanisms for public I return the perhaps' excessive com-to review this measure.
participation. Because, however, this p11ments to the Senator from Wyo-provision carefully circumscribes The Senator from Wyoming has NRC's authority to grant an interim ming as to whatever efforts I have put into presenting this legislation on the.
Very skillfully, fairly, and accurately operating license to a utility prior to floor of the Senate. The credit fo described the provisions in the report-completion of a public hearing. I am what I think is a responsib ed bul, willing to accept it.
I wiu not repeat that effort. I would, sonable piece of legislation lies entire-however. like to discuss a provision in Other committee members and I ly with the Senator from Wyoming as were persuaded the NRC needed Umit.
the bill that is of particular concern to ed authority to grant interim operat-the chairman of the subcommittee. He me-the provision authorizing the ing licenses to eliminate an estimated skillfully guided this measure through NRC to grant interim operating 11-79 months of licensing delay covering Environment and Public W a very observant full committee of the censes for new nuclear powerplants.
The interim license authorized by this some 12 or 13 separate nuclear power-mittee, and the able staff whleh has plants. This is the difference between provision would aUow a utlHty to oper-the time when construction on a plant assisted him so well not only this year r.te its powerplant prior to the conduct would be completed and the date on Once again I add my words of but in the past, or completion of an NRC hearing on which the NRC would issue a final op-thanks to him and wor granting a final operating license.
erating license. Indeed, representatives lations for his continuing fine effort.
I F
March ff,1982
. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S NSil
^
I
[
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I tlit NRC prtdicted that, acecrding to them tre ' financial prsbitms and thank the Senator fr:m Colcrada. I estimatsd construction completion changing financial considustions, wculd c:rtr. inly indict.te that it was dites prcvidId by the utilities.12 1sbor difficulties. and enginetring i
I during his leadership as chairman, powerplants would face 90 cumulative comp!! cations. These are reasons while I was ranking minority member, months of delay during 1981 and 1982 which are in the hands of the utility that I did learn about the observancy due to the NRC licensing process. Al-owners, and are not attributable to the g
capabilities of our colleagues on not though, as the NRC staff pointed out NRC.
only the subcommittee but the full at the time, ut111ty estimates on con.
It is important to note, too, that cur.
committee, struction completion dates have been rent efforts to " streamline" the NRC Mr. President. I a.sk unanimous con-historically very optimistic, these fir process,like interim licenses and other sent that the icllowing staff members ures were accepted as reliable at the similar proposals, come at the expense be given floor privileges during debate time. Numerous sources stated that of safety regulations. Such measures i
on S. 1207: Jim Asselstine, Keith plants which stood idle also resulted in may ultimately harm, rather than Glaser Erich Bretthauer, Jim Curtiss, a cost to the Nation of upward of $1 help, the nuclear industry. Recent Heather Iancaster, Jim Davenport, billion in higher utility rates.
polls show that an increasing number
.. t and Barbara Magnuson.
Much has changed since the publica-of Americans are concerned about the I also ask unanimous consent that tion of the NRC's January 1981 health and safety implications of nu.
the following members of the Energy report. The latest NRC report on clear power, and it is imperative that ' l N'-
Committee staff be granted the privi-delays in the !! censing schedule for all we in Congress be responsive to these j
leges of the floor during consideration pending operating license applications concerns. Present construction prob-t of S.1207:
shows a total of 2 months of delay. It lems at the Diablo Canyon plant' Chuck Trabandt and Paul Oilman.
is fair to say that the total number of along with simnarly serious engineer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-90 cumulative months of delay has ing complications at other plants l
out objection. It is so ordered.
been erased. Much has also changed across the country, make a strong ar.
since allegatlons were first made re-nrreans orsmarmc ucessus enortsrows,I gument for strenghtening the NRC 11-Mr. MITCNEIL Mr. President, garding the cost of plants which sit censing process. They also make a l
^
rise to voice my concerns with the in-idle. The Department of Energy began strong case, as NRC Chairman Nunzio terim operating licensing provisions in-estimating the potential cost in April Palladino noted, for nuclear utility cluded in this legislation. The NRC au-1981. Since that time, the DOE figures management "to reorient its think-thorization b!11 provides that interim have demonstrated two facts:
ing." As Chairman Palladino stated in operating licenses for nuclear power.
First, the original cost estimates pro-a recent speech before the Atomic In-L plants may be granted prior to hear-vided by the industry were inherently dustrial Porum:
'ings for NRC final operating licenses. Inflated by the cost of capital carrying 8
"l It is important to gain a perspective ecsts: second, they were exaggerated u1 Wt dm on these provisions, and to see, pre-by the overstated number of months hash standards expected for nuclear power.
cisely, what they were in response to. of delay and other cost assertions Their defieleneles in quality assurance are
$@i".
The reasons originally given for the which the DOE regularly rejected.
Inexcusable. There have been lapses of e'
f-need fot interim operating licenses are The figures which were the basis of many kinds--in design analrees, resulting in
. -j 9 manifold. But I believe the reason the interim license argument have built in desten errors: in poor construeuen which has been the most effective is been proven to be unrealistic in the pracuees: in falsified documents: in harsas-M.-
the notion, put forth by administra-case of delay figures, and hypothetical ment of quality control personnel: and ined.
E 3
tion and industry officials, of a dila-and overstated in the case of cost flg. equate training of nactor operators. Dese tory NRC bottling up its own !! censing ures. The interim license argument im-P$**g*, g',""g,'g*[,D8e if true naulatory I
~. ',;
process. For the past year, " delay" has piled that these figures exposed a per.
Industry has the key sole in the construe.
l become the most prominent catchword manent dilemma which demanded a tion and safe operation of nuclear power 6
in the debate over the NRC's licensing permanent solution. The rapid change plants. Dat is the fact. Not onir pubHe process.
in 'the cost and delay figures dramat!- health and safety considerations, 6ut eco.
Catchwords, like this one, are often cally weakens this argument. Present nomic imperauves dictate it e hishest pro-ideas which become prominent be-figures clearly show that the delays fessional standards in buth.os and operat.,
cause they are assumed to contain a represented a temporary, curable pas-ing a nuclear plant. When anstruction or high level of truth. The more often sage in the NRC's licensing process.
opermuon falls below the hishest standards, the entire industry is hurt.
they are repeated, the more true they Nevertheless, It is a passage which become. Delays in the licensing proc. demands that a number of tough ques.
The Senate Environment Committee ess, as the primary or only obstacle tions be answered by the industry. In. made a number of changes in the in-facing the construction of etw plants, stead.of blarning delays solely on the terim license provisions of the bill as it have been so widely referred to that NRC's licensing process, it is essential was originally introduced. These provi-they are now widely assumed to be that the industry realize that reasons s!ons strenghten the bill itself, and true. It has been my concern through-for delays also exist elsewhere, primar. provide more reassurance to persons out this debate that the lssue of delay fly in two areas. First, the delays like myself that interim licenses will has gained a certain currency and le-caused by the NRC's licensing process be granted only in the most severe in-gitimacy which is unwarranted. Since were mainly the result of a manpower stances. The Environment Committee the time thls legislation was first re-reallocatlon within the agency de, b!!! requires that, prlor to the issuance ported by the Senate Environment signed to meet the demands placed on of interim licenses, determinations be Committee, my concern about Interim it by the Three Mlle Island accident. made by the NRC that:
licenses has been shown to be just!- The accident there holds a valuable First. All legal requirements, other fled.
perspective for utility representatives than those relating to hearings, are It has become evident that the level who believe NRC regulations alone met.
of truth in the catchword " delay" cause delays which in turn cause the Second. There is reasonable assur-makes it undeserving of the degree to ratepayer excessive costs; the cost of ance that interim operation of the fa.
~
which It is now assumed by the public. cleaning up the accident at TMI, est!- cility in accordance with the terms.
When this legislation was first intro-mated at between $1 to $1.3 billion, is and conditions of the license will ade-duced, interim license' proponents who a cezent reminder of other potential quately protect the pubile health and supported the notion of massive delays costs to the ratepayer and makes a safety and the environment; and were clearly abetted by NRC data on case for more, not fewer, safety regula-Third. Denial of the interim license the number of months of delay in the tions, will result in delay between the time licensing schedule, and the cost of Second, there are other, essentially the f acility is sufficiently completed to those delays to the, ratepayer. In its economic reasons for the r, lowdown in permit Interim operation and the time January 1981 report to the Congress, powerplant licenses: prirnary among when a final operating license would 1
)
S 2482 cth;rwise be issued befers operati!nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ct cach powir I;v:L Urban Devtlrpmer.' Agency, the Depanmtnt (f H1using and Marchff,1989 Th2 bill clso includ;s procedural the Department of cleanup of contaminated property on,
' safeguards to assure that the issuanceg""d jdEnergy. the Tenn. ve valley Authorttr. niu and in the vicinity of, abandoned ura.
of an interim Ecense does not preju-m mul sites d
, dice the outcome of the Ucense hear-nate a monitoring, engineering assessme[nt holds a rec dt estab ish and r
ing for the plant's final operating 11-and remedial acuan program for the man-.
inactive mill siteaterial license on the cluded fro:n comp. Edgemont is ex-hearing. As well, the bill directs thecense or the rights of any party to the in section 1 ensation under the act.
NRC to adopt appropriate administra, the Edgemont. South Dakota, uranium m31of 1954. at offs Let me emphasize. Mr. President c nergy Act tive remedies to minW** the n that in 1980, both Houses of Congress, the issuance ofinterimlicenses.eed for jS # 8jnitorin8 erhee adopted amendments to remedy the y
mittee bin which further strengthensI offered an amendment to the com' ment an an Unfortunately, the amendme
- ess, the interim licensing. provisions. The the management. including remedial acconormance of requirements for attached to different bills and the pro-bin. as introduced, anowed utiuties to of such byproduct material.
. vision was not enacted.
operate at full power under an interim (b> In carrytnr out the monitoring ensi-In fiscal year 1981. Congress made license. My amendment provides for a neuing e
t d available funds to enable DOE to step-by-step progression from initial on p the statutorybegin off site remedial w for coordinating the monitoring. engineercommission shan fuel loading and low-power testing up to full-power levels.
authority.
ing assessment and remedial acuon program. unable to expend those funds. DOE w To conclude. Mr. President. I find it estabushed by subsection (a) and. in consul-Mr. President, this situation has im-distressing that the debate over inter-tauon with the state of South Dakota.
posed severe hardsh!ps on the citizens im licenses has focused almost entirelyshall-of EdgemontJ Uranium min tailings, gQ)g, stab general objectives and prior-on nuclear development. and supposed e
which have been located in the fou obstacles to that development, rather (2) review and approve a monf toring ensi-M d m'd Mm W 6 h than on nuclear safety. We do have an neering assessment and remedial action pro. ya obligation to see that the process does uan (a); gram for the locauons described in subsec-due to the high radon levels d not become bogged down needlessly whDe trivial items are discussed. This (3) assure that an approved monitoring in the residential community the En-is not just an NRC or in engineering s.ssessment and remedial action
. vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) cern. It is a public concern.dustry con-ygQC Q,es and Urban Development (HU But we have another obligation that as amended, and conforms to the standards Ato e e cf 1 54 an obligation to insure that nuclearmust always take precedence. We have the puf engaging in Federal Housing Authort.
ty (FHA) loan transactions in Edge-power does not endanger the pubuc i
ment from radiological and nonradiological e emiron-mont. The negative press the uranium Tg health and safety, and that those who hazards associated with residual radioactive mill tallings issue has provoked has may have legitimate questions and in, materials located at inactive urantum miu had a significant economic impact on formation about health and safety y
an,d depos 4
the community. Having been surv e
hmrds are afforded an opportunity t
th 2*l5 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, astal Protecuon Ag o
to participate in the licen residents feel that appropriate remedi-cense amendment process. sing and 11*
trea amended; and j
al action is long past due.
To meet this obl!gation, we must scrutinize (4) provide funding through contract for The Nuclear Regulatory Commfuton more carefully the cost and delay fig. an approved monitoring and engineering as-(NRC) in cooperation with TVA the ures provided^to the Congress by the sessment program at the locations described State of South Dakota and EPA. has industry in the future. But we must any on a1 nearly completed the prepara cf catchwords which, if they do notalso scrutinize more incisively the use Stat l02(e) of the Ursnlum Mm essary to begin the actual r} ion ne Tamnts Radiauon Control Act of 3025) is amended by add 1978 (92 work. If enacted this amendment will emedial contain a high level of truth, have the paragraph (3) to read as fonows ing a new enable DOE to begin work on the re-ability to d!stort and mislead a nation. tion contained in this secuen th S g1 poljey detste,
"(3) Notwithstanding the one-year lim!ta-
+
medial project struction season.during the next con-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President than designate for remedial acuon any real e ecretary Mr President. I understand that lieve that the Senator from. I be Edgemont. South Daaota that-property, or improvements thereon. in this arnendment has the support of South Dakota has an amendment to (A) La in the vicinity of the Tennessee the distinguished subcommittee chair-I yield to him for that purpose. propose.
vaner Authortty uranium mm site in Edge-man and ranking minority member.
mont. and t'P astENDa[ENr No. 83 4 Mr. SDirsoN and Mr. HART.
Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President. I send (B)is determine' d by the Commission to beI do thank both of these gentlemen C0 Its immediate consideration.an amendment to the desk and ask for
[th fgju radioacuve rna. I hav b W W NWm e h p h nmeo this pa The PRESIDING OFFICER. The lem.
ar p Ad.'ranistrator, the commtulon andgraph the Secretary shau consul amendment will be stated.
e Mr. PRESSLER The assistant legislative clerk read Tiue I of this Act shall apply to the remed:* State of South Da the as follows:
y support for the amendment of which I am a cospon-The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
al action at property designated under thissor, offered - by my colleague from e, "hpNd paragraph. except that notwithstanding any South Dakota. I have been' working on re$
er e num the problem of procuring assistance in t e fun co t oIsuch a p deal th the Mr. ABDNOR e
unanimous conse. Mr. President. I ask Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President on gs in d nt that further read. behalf of myself and Senator a resolution of this matter,ing to s ing of the amendment be dispensed PREssM3t. I offer this amendment to give the Department of Energy (DOE)
The radiation problem in the Edge-out objection. It is so ordered.e PRESIDING OFFICER. With designated authority to take remedial action at mont area came to a head in March property in the vicinity of rmnd Urban Developrnent 5 art r$1 e 2 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) on age to read as fonows:
d a n w section uranium mill site at. Edgemont S. the town notice that it would no gave Scc..ta) The commission in consulta.
Dak.
longer insure housing mortgages for ti:n with the Environmental Protection 1978 was enactedThe Uranium Mill Tallings Act of Environrnentalhomes to assist in the Protection (EPA's) radiation levels. At that timeAgency's
March SS,1SSS CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2483 I personally visite'd Edgemont and That is exactly the way it has oc-exceed" before th2 figure "s20.400.000"; on spoke with ar:n r;sidents about the curred and we agpreciate his explana, page 4. hne 1. insert the wres "an amount problem. I also offered several amend. tion of the ament. ment.
nt to
,exe n d,",8 ' s N' to 'N before,, the figures,
ments during the 96th Congress to au-The PRESIDDiG OFFICER. Does 83 5 0 a.
thorize this remedial action and ap-the Senator fro = South Dakota move 4 3 ch ge propriate funds, but, unfortunately, his amendment?
amount net to exceed $45.500.000".
legal barriers have remained.
Mr. ABDNOR. I shall do that after (6) On page 4. Une 7. change "s19.095.000" to "s:1, goo.ono".
The source of the radiation in the the expiration of the time. Mr. Presi-(7) On page 4.
line it, change town is a former uranium mill. dent.
"$41.644.000" 1o "$37.000.000".
Through EPA investigations, various Mr. HART. Mr. President, this (8) On page 7. hne 15. strike "(2) the final houses l'n the.Edgemont community amendment would provide authority safety evaluation report on the appucation I
were determined to have exceedingly for the Department of Energy to begin by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
high levels of radiation. It was found work on remedial action for mill tail-staff;" and insert in ueu thereof: "(SJ the,
that some houses in the community ings at the Edge =ont site, as the dis-g had been built with mill t, flings as tinguished Senator from South port by the N 1 at R g r
backfill.
Dakota has outlined. Although DOE is sion staff and the NRC staff's first supple.
ment to the report prepared in response to Throughout the Government's deal.
+
ready,it needs the authority to go for-the report of the Adytsory Committee on ings with the community of Edge-ward. I agree Mth the case that the Reactor Safeguards for the faculty;".
mont. there have been delays in secur. Senator has made to cleanup offsite (9) On page 9. line 7. strike "date on th!ch ing remedial actions for the properties mul tanings of Edgemont. It will a final operating license for such facility contami nted with uranium mill tall-ings. The Department of Energy has reduce the public health and safety would otherwise issue under this Act.", and hazards that sites of this sort present insut in m thue "date when such fa-determined that it cannot proceed in his State and in my State and, un- $1 "I#
D"*
'I" #"" P *" *#
with the remedial actions necessary fortunately, in too many States.
until Congress provides authorization.
(10) On page 11. strike lines 5 and 6. and The Department also indicates that it I join the Senator ! rom Wyoming in insert in lieu thereof:
is prepared to proceed soon after re-endorsing and supporting the amend-
"e. The authority to issue new interim op-
- ment, erating licenses under this section shall ceh-ing statutory authority.
Mr. ABDNOR. I thank the Senator expire on December 31.19sa.~.
The purpose of this amendment is to from Colorado.
j grant the authority needed to begin (11) On page 11. lines 11.19 and 21 insert this important task. I can assure my Mr. President. I move adoption of " facility before the word"11 cense".
my amendment.
(12) On page 13. une 9. insert "or an inter.
colleagues here that from my contacts The PRESIDING OFFICER. The im opuaunt heense" after the word "H-I with the people of Edgemont there is question is on agreeing to the amend- **",'On page 13. bestaning on line 16' no question but that this amendment 333 ment of the Senator from South is very 'important to the well.being of Dakota (Mr. AzDNoR).
strike section 303'15. beginning on Ihle 16 the Edgemont community. I hope that The amendment (UP No. 834) was strike section 304.
(14) On page this amendment win receive the sup-agreed to.
port it merits, and urge my coUeagues Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider Mr. SD.iPSON. Mr. President, this amendment makes a number of h ch endment was L
. 2 fr. President. I am ed to Mr.
changes to the biU that are of a tech-d h d Sen to re Sou m
n h
le-Dakota. As the sponsor of the amend-portions of the bill to reflect changes t pointed this dm t is W M DC m rN 835 that have occurred since the commit-r to one adopted last ar by the The PRESIDDiG OFFICER. The Senate on the NRC authorization bH1 Senator from Wycming.
tee reported the bullast 2,.11y.
for fiscal year 1981. That measure Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send First, the amendment provides an failed due to inaction by the House.
to the desk an a=endment, and I ask overall reduction in the level of spend-ing authorized for the agency for Mr. President, the Edgemont situa. for its immediate consideration.
fiscal year 1982 of $10 million. Th!s re-tion is a unique one. We recognize The PRESIDUiG OFFICER. The duction reflects the present' con-that. Although the Edgemont site is amendment will be stated.
an inactive uranium mill site. it was in, The assistant legislative clerk read straints on the Federal budget in gen-cluded in the remedial action program as foDows; eral, and is more consistent with the amounts now appropriated to the established by the Uranium Mill Tail.
The Senator frem Wyoming (Mr. Sne-NRC for fiscal year 1982.
ings Radiation Control Act of 1978 be-son), for bi=self and Mr. Ihnr. proposes an cause TVA held a current license from unprinted amendme:t numbued 835.
Second, the amendment make.s sev-eral adjustments in the allocation of NP.C for the mill. Although TVA is ob-Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous the authorization of $485,200,000 ligated and has agreed-this is impor-consent that further reading be dis-among the CommMon's major pro-tant-to clean up the mill tailings on pensed with.
the Edgemont site. It has no legal re.
The PRESIDDiG OFFICER.-With-gram categories. These adjustments sponsibility for cleanup of the ta!!!ngs out objection. It is so ordered.
take into account the Commbion's' at the offsite locations. As I under.
The amendment is as foUows:
most recent estimates of budgetary needs in several areas, including the stand the Senator's amendment, it (1) On page 2.
line 9,
change increased reactor licensing effort and would incorporate into the remedial 8495.700,000" to stI5,200.000"-
licensing requirements for the Clinch (2'
action program of the Mill Ta!!ings g75.610 000"Y-sh.1 0$0"; c'n pacN Act these offsite mill taUings loca-tions. Also, the amendment would con. line 14. change 86M0.000" to "an amount Third, the amendment makes three not to exceed 36.500.000": and on page 2 clarifying changes to the provision in firm the monitoring and engineering line 16, insert an :nount not to excetd" the bill, section 201. granting the Com-assessment program now underway by before the figure ~s1.000.000".
mission the authority to issue interim NRC that would precede the cleanup (3) On page 2.
line 19, change operating licenses for new nuclear itself at these offsite locations.
"sC7.424.000" to "st2.900.000"; on page 2 powerplants. The first of these Indeed. Mr. President, we appreciate lines 22 and 23. insen the words "an amount changes makes it clear that a petition the work of the Senator from South If t to exceed" before, the figures 13 for an interim operating license may Dakota and his thoughtful response to 8,5 o "$ce e' 18 enance be filed after the issuance of the NRC n
an extraordinarily unique situation in
"$ 4 6.257.000" to "s 3!.500.000".
staff's safety evaluation report and his State.
(5) On page 3.
line 21 change the supplement to that report pre-Mr. ABDNOR. I thank the Senator -s245.670.000" to -1240.300.000"; on page 3. pared by the NP.C staff in response to for that very thorough. explanation. line 24, insert the ruds an amount not to the report of the Advisory Committee i
- S 24S4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March ff,1982 cn RIactor Safegutrds. There -may Finally. Mr. President.E the amend. from tlie Office of Science and Tech.
weU be supplemInts to the NRC ment strikes the provt.:on in the bin. nology Policy. and other appropriate staff's SER prepared after this point, section 304, that ret. *es DOE and executive agencies. It plans to consult and this change makes it clear that NRC to enter into a 1 morandum of in a meaningful fashion with the interim operating license petition understanding regardmg radioactive emironmental and public int could precede these later supplements. wastes from the Three Mile Island ae-The second of these clarifying changes cident cleanup.
groups. and State and local organiza-more precisely defines the third test in My colleague from Colorado and I tions. NRC also has embarked upon its the bill for the issuance of an interim operating license. Under that test. the were both involved in seeing that that own licensing reform task force. DOE was placed in the provision, and I am wiU endeavor to work closely with Commission must find that there pleased to report that after the com-NRC to enable the administration to wguld be a licensing delay for the mittee adopted that provision, the propose a coordinated set of appropri-plant if the interim operating license agencies completed their work on that ate improvements in the licensing were not issued. The revised test would permit issuance of the interim memorandum of understanding. It is process well in advance of the timeta-finished, and that provision is there-ble for the advisory panel contemplat-license if the Commission finds that fore no longer required.
ed by section 303.
there would otherwise be a delay be-tween the expected date of plant com changesThat concludes the summary of thehir. President. It now is late in made by this technical hiarch and it appears likely that this pletion and the expected date on amendment, and I move the adoption bin probably wiu require a conference which the plant would otherwise begin of the amendment, because of certain significant differ-full. power operation. The third Mr. HART. Mr. President, I fully ences from the House-passed bill. As a change makes it clear that the Com-support the effort of the floor man. result, it will probably be at least mission's authority to issue new inter-im operating licenses expires on De-ager and chairman of the committee April, if not later in 1982 before any cember 31,1983, but that any interim in this matter. He has stated the case conference report on this legislation licenses issued before that date may adequately, and I support the adop d e e(
continue in effect beyond the end of tion of the amendment and endorse eq this e nde a i 1983.
the proposal by the Senator.
sory panel could lead to NRC and advt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who sory panel action which could con-Fourth, the amendment makes a yields time?
sume the balance of calendar year change to the provision in the bul, sec-Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will 1982 and certainly extend well beyond j
tion 202, that authorizes the NRC to issue and to make immediately effec the Senator from Idaho?the Senator from Wyoming yield to the adjournment i
the 97th Congress. In that event, the tiva license amendments that involve l
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I report required of the advisory panel i
n3 significant hazards consideration. yield to the Senator from Idaho.
might not be considered by the Con-This change makes it clear that this Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator gress until calendar year 1983.
pr; vision in section 189 of the Atomic for yielding.
e 'j-S Enrrgy Act applies to facility licenses Mr. President, section 303 of the bul mittee for the action that it has taken Mr. President I commend the com-and not to materials licenses.
would establish an independent advi-not only in the total legislation before Fifth, the amendment deletes the re-4 quirement for the nuclear powerplant sory panel to evaluate the effective-us but also in the technical amend-l ness and efficiency of the current 11
'l I!=fw study that is contained in censing process and to report its find-ment now pending, and particularly with respect to the removal of the re-f section 303 of the bul.
After the committee adopted this ings to the NRC and the Congress quirement for the advisory panel within 180 days of enactment.The sec.
I take this time only to say that at 1
provision, Mr. President, both the tion sets forth the specific procedures the time this was put into the bill, it
\\
NRC and the Department of Energy for establishment of the advisory began internal studies of the licensing panel by the NRC, including member-seemed an advisable thing to do/and process that are aimed at the develop-ship, expenses; the substantive focus as a matter of fact the other body has ment of nuclear powerplant licensing of its efforta, and reporting require. done so in their pending legislation.
rIfsrm proposals early this year. The Ccmmi"lon has also agreed to estab-ments. The panel is exempted.from I seek the statement of the Senator certain requirements of the Federal from Wyoming and the managers of lish an independent review group for Advisory Committee Act. The commit-the bill, when it goes to conference, the purpose of evaluating and report-tee amendment would strike section what their attitude would be if the ing to the Commiulon on legislative 303 and remove the requirement for House keeps the advisory panel in and eminhtrative proposals for re-such an advisory panet their proposed legislation, as to fcrming the licensing process. A focus Mr. President, at the time this provi. whether or not the Senate conferees cf this review group's efforts will be sion v.as adopted. In early May of last would strongly urge our position of re-thi legislative and administrative reftrm proposals now being developed year, the new administration was still moving the advisory panel, by the Commfulon's Internal Regula-in the formative stages in terms of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The both personnel and poucles related to Senator from Wyoming *
- tory Reform Test Force, although the nuclear power. Since that time, howev.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I r.TviIw group will be free to make er, the open positions at the NRC thank the Senator from Idaho for eth:r recommendations and comments have been filled and the President has those points of clarification.
to the Commission. The Commission is enunciated his nuclear power policy in He, indeed, in my time here has fol.
In the process of selecting indhiduals a formal poucy statement and in a lowed the issue of regulation of the to serve on this review group who re-series of related programmatic and nuclear industry in more adept fash-flect a range of interests and perspec-policy actions at NRC and the Depart-lon than many, and I appreciate h tives and who have a detailed knowl-ment of Energy. One essential element assistance.
edg2 of. and direct experience with, of the President's formal policy state.
ess. We believe that the Commission's ment on nuclear power was the Prest.
Mr. McCLURE. I assume that the tha nuclear powerplant licensing proc-CUorts to move forward with this inde-dent's directive that the Secretary of Senator from Wyoming would see Energy give immediate priority atten. prevan, in the event of a conference pendent review effort will achieve the tion to recommending improvements with the House. If,indeed, they do not '
purposes of section 303 of the bul and remove the advisory panel, as set forth will avoid any unnecessary delay in in the nuclear regulatory and licensing in their legislation. and you should process.
issues by NRC or the administration.
DOE has implemented that directive arrive at conference with them with the consideration of licensing reform Therefore, section 303 of the bill is no by forming a task force whose efforts legislation frotn the House w an advisory panel, this a nendment longer needed.
are now well underway. That task force win also include representation stating your position would{be strong-ly held in the conference I assume.
~
March f2,1Sf3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2TS5 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in all Finally, the court's order bars the had rejected similar psychological ways I shall try to preserve the Sen. NRC from making a decision on the stress arguments in six other proceed.
ate's position on that.
restart of TMI-1 pending completion ings. Two of these are proceedings for Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator of the environmental assessment and. the issuance of new powerplant oper.
from Wyoming.
if necessary, an environmental impact sting licenses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does statement..
the Senator from Wyoming yield Mr. President. I believe the court's Requiring the consideration of psy.
i judgment in the Pane case that psy. chological stress in these cases would time?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield now to the chological health and well.being must almost certainly delay the issuance of f
Senator from Colorado.
be considered by the NRC, pursuant to these licenses, and would very likely i
lead to a flood of psychologteal stress 1
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the National Environmental Policy contentions in -other pending and 8
the Senator from Wyoming dispose of Act, before the Commission may allow the arnendment now pending?
the restart of TMI-1 represents a to. future NRC proceedings.
I I
Mr. SIMPSON, Yes. We do have an tally incorrect reading of the require.
If the court's decision extends to amendment before the body, ments of NEPA.
other agencies as well, virtually every j
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There In addition, I believe the court's major construction or development is an amendment before the body. The judgment' has potentially serious ad. project requiring Federal approval-question is on agreeing to the amend. verse consequences in the case of from airports, to bridges and roads. to g
ment.
TMI-I restart proceedings, in the military installations-would become i
The amendment (UP No. 835) was agreed to.
Commission's other licensing actions, targets for psychological stress conten.
and in a variety of other actions by tions under NEPA.
i Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I numerous Federal agencies.' For these Mr. President. I do not believe that move to reconsider the vote by which reasons, I believe the Congress should the Congress ever intended NEPA to i
the amendment was agreed to.
act promptly to reverse the court's require the consideration of psycho.
i Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to judgment in this case by making it logical stress as an environmental i
lay that rootion' on the table.
clear as a matter of law that the NRC impact-in a case such as the restart The motion to lay the amendment is not required to consider the effects of Three Mile Island Unit One, in e
i on the table was agreed to.
of any of its actions on' psychological NRC's other lleensing actions, or in Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I health or well being, the actions of other Federal agencies.
yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, the most immediate My amendment would make this clear.
[
cr aurxurnt mo. s se impact of the court's decision will be I urge the adoption of the amend.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I on the restart of TMI-I. The NRC ment.
F send an amendment to the desk and staff has estimated that the prepara.
Mr. President, appended to rny state.
ask for its immediate consideration.
tion of an erwironmental assessment The PRFEIDING OFFICER. The of psychological stress will require at ment is a list of psychological, or at amendment will be stated.
least 6 months.
least so called. stress situations involv.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
If. after preparing such an assess-ing environmental impact statements IThe Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLear) ment, the NRC finds that psychologi. under the court order where Federal
~
proposes unprinted amendment No. 836.3 cal stress resulting from the restart of funds are involved. I refer to the possi.
i Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President I ask TMI-I will be significant, the Commis-bility of interstate highways, airports, I
low income houstng projects, section unanimous consent that further read. s!on must then prepare Ln environ.,404 permits under the Federal Water ing of the amendment be dispensed mental impact statement, which the with.
NRC staff estimates will require an Pollution Control Act, Forest Service The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-additional 6 months.
programs, Dureau of Reclamation out objection, it is so ordered.
If the court imposes further proce. projects, Corps of Engineers projects, The amendment is as follows.
dural requirements on the NRC such energy projects, urban renewal-devel.
opment neth*1tles, actions affecting On page 12, after line 19. add a new sec. as the requirement to conduct an adju*
tion to read as follows:
dicatory hearing on the issue, as the historic sites, actions invohing toxic S oc.
sat Chapter 10 of the Atomic court has done in at least one instance substances, including pesticides.
Energy Act of 19H. a.: amended is amended in the past, the hearing would likely Mr. President, the !!st goes on and by adding the fo11owing new section at the require at least 6 more months.
on where the possibility of claims (nd thereof:
Thus, it is entirely possible that 1% made by s.arious persons with respect "Su:. 112. PstenotocacAL Hr.Atru MD to so-called psychological stress woul b x that I think it is well for us to Wru. Bttnc."
years or more could be required to pen such a tremendous Pando s "Notwithstandins any other provtstons of comply with the court's ruling. Such a law, the Commission shall not be required delay in the restart of TMI.1 could ad.
to consider the effects of any of its actions very well jeopardize the commitments dress that question now and immedi.
en tbt The table of contents for such Chap. that have been made by the State ately*
psychologicat health or we!! beingr.
public utility commissions in Pennsyl.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I t;r 10 is amended by adding the following vania and New Jersey to designate say to my good friend, and neighbor, new item at the end thereot ratepayer funds for the cleanup of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Sze. 112. Psvenotocic4L H uttu
- D j
wrz.L Branc?.
Three Mile Island unit two.
that I certainly agree with all of his I
In any event, under present arrange, comments, and I fully support the rea.
l Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. this ments, such funds cannot actually be sons that he has presented for his q
cmendment would reverse a judgment spent for c!canup until TMI/1 is re. amendment.
E issued on January 7,1982, by the U.S.
stored to service.
I would even add an additional point.
Court of Appeals in the case of Pane Mr. President, this potential of the I am very troubled by the extremely J
against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory court's decision to delay further. or subjective nature of the phrase "psy.
~,
Commission. In that judgment, the even to jeopardize, the c!can up of chological health of nelchboring resl.
(ourt ordered the NRC to prepare an TMI-2 is only one of the possible con. dents and the well.being of the sur.
environmental assessment of the ef. sequences of this decision. The court's rounding communities." to use the "
lj fects of restart, of Three Mlle Island requirement that psychological stress words of the court. Unlike the kinds of p
Unit One on " psychological health of )e considered an envircnmental environmental impacts that are now neighboring re,ldents and on the we!!. Impact under NEPA may well extend routinely considered pursuant to O
q being of the surrounding communi. to other NRC licensing actions, and to NEPA, psychological health and well.
ties.' The tourt further ordered the a wide range of actions by other Fed. being are not objectively determinable NRC. If it 41nds such effects to be !g. eral agencles.
or measurable. I feel that the court's U
nifice, to prepare a full environmen.
In the case of NRC, at the time of decision in the Pane case will lead the 1
tal impact statement, the court's decision, the Commission Commission and perhaps other Feder.
I 2
L
S 24S6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD... SENATE Man:h f2,1982 al cgencies as well. into a morass cf are ava!!able, and that the committee scribed or issued under this crction. In par.
speculation and subjective judgeminL will net expeditiously to repor* out c.ny ticular, the report shall:
This decision might well lead to pro-necessary corrective legislat. using
"(1) identify any information protected tracted hetyings in which competing whatever legislative vehicle availa-from daciosure pursuant to such resulation panels of psychologists and psychia-ble at that time to assure prompt en- "' O'd
- l trists argue about the state of mind of actment.
- 12) specifically state the Secretary's justi.
i th] community. Perhaps the decision Mr. SIh1PSON. Mr. President. I am NeNna ton auYn p e
o c
m: even require public referenda in pleased to provide those assurances to from disclosure under such regulation or ar s where psychological stress is al-the distinguished Senator from Idaho order could reasonably be expected to ha've leged.
and pledge, to do so. I certainly believe a significant adverse effect on the health C;rtainly, whatever means the Com-that some legislation will be needed to and safety of the public or the common de.
In!sslin selects for assessing psycho-correct the court's erroneous interpre. fense and security by significantly increas.
logical health and well.being is likely tation of NEPA in sufficient time to ing the likelihood of illegal production of to be challenged as inadequate, lead-avoid unwarranted impacts on the nuclear weap ns or theft. diversion. or sabo-ing to further litigation and delay. I.
Commission's licensing actions.
$tN*[M'3 un b'n $
su f r en, certainly share your view that This approach will allow us to close-this section; and this is something that was never in-ly tailor the legislative solution to the
-(3) provide justification that the Secre-tend;d by the Congress when it en-problem. I also add that' this matter tary has applied such regulation or order so acted the National Environmental has been discussed with the distin-as to protect from disclosure only the inins.
Polley Act.
guished Senator from Vermont, the mum amount of information necessary to Mr. McCLURE. hir. President. I ap-chairman of the Environment and protect the health and safety of the public precir.t2 the comments of the distin-Public Works Committee, and he or the common defense and security.".
guished Senator from Wyoming, and I stands by these assurances'as well.
hir. HART. hir. President I offer share the concerns that he has men
- hir. HART. hir. President, although what I hope will be a noncontroversial tiened.
I am not yet convinced of the need for amendment to section 148 of the hir. SIMPSON Mr. President, there legislation in this case, I would cer. Atomic Energy Act. Section 148, en-13 en? cther comment that I should tainly support the assurances made by acted last fall as part of the DOE Na-like to make about this amendment. the distinguished Senator from Wyo. tional Security Programs Authorita.
As the Senator from Idaho knows, we ming that the committee will active}y tion Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-90),
are in o somewhat unusual situation consider this matter, including the authorizes the Secretary of Energy to with the Pane case. Although the need for legislation,' as soon as the withhold from disclosure unclassified court issued its two-page judgment on court issues its opinions.
information pertaining to the dec!gn
. January 7, it has not yet seen fit to hir. McCLURE. hir. President. I of production or utilization facilities, issu2 its opinions, which will explain thank my distinguished colleagues, safeguards, and the design of atomic th2 court's rationale and define the and with those assurances on behalf of weapons.
scope ci the decision. We discussed the committee. I withdraw the amend.
As passed by the Senate, this provi-
. this matter Mth the Commiulon in ment at this time.
sion included a subsection (c) that sub-our budget hearing earlier this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (hir. jected to judicial review the Secre.
Althrugh several of the Comm!"lon* AntsraoNc). Without objection, the tary's exercise of this authority, and a ers czpressed serious concerns about amendment is withdrawn, subsection (d) that directed the Secre-th? Pan 2 decision, particularly if it ex-u m a rno,,,,
tary to publish quarterly a report de.
Comm on w t
r ide u
(%se To amen o 1 54 or o er r scri do ed
~
with an assessment of the precise under the Drovision.
scope and impacts of the decision.
Mr. HART. hir. President I send to During conference with the gouse, Thus, as a consequence of the the desk an amendment and ask for its court's failure to complete its work in immediate consideration.
these two subsections were dropped.
this case, the committee has not yet The PRESIDING OFFICER. The My amendment today would simply been tbl; to assess the scope of the de-amendment will be stated.
restore these two subsections to sec-cisi:n cr its likely impact. Given the The legislative clerk read as follcws-tion 148. I urge Senate passage of this seri;usniss of legislating any changes The Senator from Colorado Gir. EnT) amendment for two reasons. First, to NEPA, some of our colleagues have preposes an unprinted amendment num. without these two subsections, the urged postponing any legislative bered an.
Secretary of Energy can withhold in-acti:n until after the court's opinions hir. HART. Mr. President, I ask formation free from the public scrutt-becoma nvallable and the committee is unanimous consent that reading of the ny necessary to guard against abuse of Ebla to assess the scope and impact of. arnendment be dispensed with.
this authority. The withholding of in-th2 decision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-formation from the public is a serious I th;refore inquire of the sponsor of out objection, it is so ordered.
business. We should at least insure an, th2 cmendment if he would be willing' The amendment is as follows:
independent review of the Secretary's -
to withdraw the amendment at this on page 12. after line 19. add the fonow. exercise of this authority. These sub-tim? With the understanding that the ing new section:
sections w!!! do just that.
committee would actively consider this Src. (a) Section 148a. (1) of the Atomic Second, restoring these two subsec-matt:r-and in a very prompt Enerry Act of 1954, as amended. is amended tions to section 148 would carry out.
manner-after the court issues its by inserting immediately af ter - Secre-the stated intent of the Armed Serv-tary )" a comma and the following "with re-ices Committee, when it reported this epinirns in the Pane case [ President,'N 3,etiofg*4g",N'$e'$n$
section, to make this provision consist-
"l hir. McCLURE. Mr.
I et ent with section 147 of the Atomic cgra with my colleague that it is of 1954, as amended. is amended by adding somph^t difficult to assess the at the end thereof the following new subsec. Energy Act. Section 147 grants the impnet cf this case. and to arrive at 'an tions.
NRC similar authority to withhold in, appropriate legislative solution, in the "d. Any determination by the Secretary formation about safeguards for NRC-Ebsence of the court's opinions.
concerning the app!!cability of this section licensed facilities. The NRC provision.
I reluctantly agree to withdraw the shall be subject to judicial review punuant,however, provides for judicial review tmendment at this time if the distin-to subseetton (ax4xB) et section 552 of title of, and periodic public reports on, the 5 t U
'sh ! pr'epare on a quar-NRC s exercise of its authority.
guish;d chairman and ranking minor-he S e ity member of the Nuclear Regulation terly basis a report to be made avanable I. urge the Senate to accept this Subcommittee will assure me that the upon the request of any interested person, amendment, and I hope my colleague c:mmittee will hold hearings on this detalline the Secretary's application during from Wyoming will support this meas-mitter as soon as the court's opinions that period of every regulation or order pre-ure.
March 22,1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
.S 2487 Mr. SIMPSOli. Mr. President. I sup.
The senator frem Idahs 0.tr. Mectraz) port the amendm;nt effer'.'d by the proposes an unprmted amendment nm-criteria is highly prescriptive and in distinguished Senator from Colorado.
bered g38, the absence of a scientific basis was In the 90th Congress, as part of the Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I ask the mortgage that was undertaken by NRC fiscal year 1980 authorization, unanimous consent that reading of the the Federal Government to continue the NRC was given the authority to amendment be dispensed with.
the licensing of nuclear powerplants.
j withhold certain narrowly-defined cat.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With-The mor: gage has been virtually paid egories of saieguards information re. out objection. It is so ordered.
through the successful operation and lated to activities over which the NRC The amendment is as follows:
testing at lof t.
has jurisdiction. That authority is set on pase 6 after line 13. add the fonorms The intent of my amendment is to forth in.section 147 of the Atomic new section: Of the amounts authorized to require that NRC incorporate the data Energy Act.
D
- that it has obtLined as well as the les.
In November 1981, section 148 was,,',",$' int tion lo a 4 a ns it h.u learned from the operation -
t o
added to the Atomic Energy Act, ex-Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Com. of LO? r Mto a revision of the existing tending to the Department of Energy mission shan provide fundins through con. appeth E to 10 CFR 50. I think this authority similar to that granted the tract with the orguization responsible for is necessary to establish the true the less-of Fluid Test cperations for a de-NRC in 1980. In accordance with the tailed technical renew and analysis c: re-safety margins that exist in the event requirements of section 148. DOE now search results obtained from the loss >f.
that an emergency core cooling system has the authority to withhold certain Fluid Test Pacility research program. The would be required in the event of an infarmation related to atomic energy accident. In this way the credibility of defense programs.
,"dp*infa[d recce
^
e d[ through the proper quantific the licensing process will be enhanced Mr. President, as I understand it, the ing to the Comwetton appropriate rettions intent of this technical amendment is to Appendiz K to Part 50 of the Com us. the margins of safety truly available simply the procedural requirements ston's regulations in accordance with the from the safety systems and this appucable to the withholding of un. Ioss of Fluid Test research results. The eon-should be a first attem i
tract shan provide funding for not less taan classified information by the Depart. twenty man years tn each of itseal years to consider the way in which they in-1 ment of Energy and the Nuclear Regu-1982 and 1983 to conduct the techr.:es! corporate their research and develop-latory Commission pursuant to sec- **frMc ment results into licensing criteria.
tions 147 and 148 of the Atomic I
Mr. President, nu-Mr. President,I urge the adoption of
'5
{.
Energy Act. As those provisions now ciear t
P my amendment.
c( yields time?The PRESIDING OFF
. stand, Congress has imposed certain go,g_
ng 2 e
ic l
reporting and judicial review require-h'
('feb E
i ments that differ based upon the t
les Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am I
p Agency or Department withholding vide the underpinnings of the verifica. pleased to accept this amendment by l
the information, rather than the type tion required for the computer codes my colleague from Idaho. I know how of information to be withheld. This NRC uses to license nuclear porer-carefully be has foDowed this issue. Of amendment, if adopted-and I certain-plants and for the computer codes course, therc is excellent research j
ly support it-will cure this statutory that industry uses in their design. The work being done at the loss of fluid I
inconsistency by establishing unifonn loss-of. fluid test facility is the premier test faciUty (LOFT). Thus far, this re-requirements for the withholding of facility in the world for doing major search work has established conit.
e
{
such information. As I also under-testing of the effectiveness of light dence, based upon actual test results, stand, this amendment would conform "l
"C that the Cornmtufon's emergency core ce Q e cooling requirensents in appendix K to the language of section I48 to the lan.
3 Af e
gunge originally passed by the Senate. accident, the LOFT fac!Ety acthities part 50 of the NRC regulations are in Mr. President. I support the amend-were promptly redirected to examine fact very conservatJve models for plant ment and I am pleased to accept it.
several problems that could be faced behavior. The Senator's amendment I win yield to anyone else wishing to by operating nuclear plants in the would carry this important research address h ammdment-event of a smaD break accident stehr work one step further by actuaHy ap-Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to that which occurred at Three Mile plying the LOPr test results to the de-i the adoption of the amendment.
Island. The results of that testing at velopment of appropriate revisions to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all LOFT were new procedures for the ep.
the Commfufon's regulations.
(
time yielded back on the amendment? cration of the main cocling puraps at Mr. President. I believe that this is a Mr. HART. I yield back the remain-commercial nuclear powerplants in the worthwhile effort and that it willlead der of my time.
event of a break simnar to that which to an improved and more accurate set Mr. SIMPSON..I yield back the re. occurred at Three Mile Island. The of regulatory requirements. I com-mainder of my tirre, LOFT fac1Uty has proven to be invalu. mend the Senator from Idaho for this The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able in assisting in the post-TMI anal. amendment, and I am pleased to Question is on agreeing to the amend-ysis that was done for small breaks accept it on b ehalf of the majority.
ment..
and for the work necessary to estab-I yield to the Senator from Colorado The amendment (UP No. 837) was lish correct responses for commercial, for any comments.
ly licensed plants to similar types of Mr. HART. Mr. President, I support agreed to.
events.
s Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the I am concerned, however, that the the arguments of the Senator from Wyoming and anne myself with his i
amendment was agreed to.
results of the testing at LOFT have position on this matter and urge the Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that not found their way into the Ucensing adoption of the amendment.
1 motion on the table.
process.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I The motion to lay on the table was The tests performed at LOFT thus yield back our time.
agreed to.
far have confirmed that appendix K to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does ' '
UP AMENDMENT No. 8 38 10 CFR 50, the criteria that NRC uses (Purpose: To review and analrr.e the Iess-and has been using for the last 8 years the minority also yield back his time?
Mr. HART. I yfeld back my time.
of. Fluid Test research program re'sults) to license the emergeny core cooling Mr. McCLURE. I call for the ques.
systems at nuclear powerplants is tion.
. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I htshly conservative.
send to the desk an amendment and The PRESIDING OFFICER. All I
ask for its immediate consideration.
Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 is the in-time having been yielded back, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The terim criteria that NRC specified for amendment wiU be stated.
the Ucensing of emergency core cool-question is on agreeing to the amend.
The legislative clerk read as follows: Ing systems pending the availability of ment of the Senator from Idaho.
the data from the loft faellity. This The amendment (UP No. 838) was agreed to.
t
-I
S 2488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
' March 22,1882 '
e-Mr. McCI.URE. Mr. Presid:nt. I The study shr.11 also include a survey cf rep-tensive seismic design verification pro-move to reconsid:r th2 vcte by which resentr.tive sites at which qua* *t assu ance the ame'ndment was agreed to.
and quality control program, e opersung gram. The NRC also wants the compa-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I jgaetority, and an assessms of the rea. ny to reexmine its quality assurance msve to' lay that motion on the table.
program.
(c) The. commission shan undertale a At the Zimmer facility in Moscow.
The motion to lay on the table was tgreed to.
pilot prosram to review and evaluate pro. Ohio the NRC's Chicago regional grams underway that include one or more of UP Ah:DrDMElfr No. sse the alternatire coDeepts identified in sub" office failed to act on reports raised Mr. FORD. Mr. President. I send an section (b) for the purposes of assessing the oVer a year ago. of faulty Construction practices inclCding charges of improp-amindment to the desk and ask for its u' d er pipe welding. Fortunately, the alle-I immediate consideration.
p t Th2 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Include' programs underway that use inde. rations were pursued by a concerned am:ndment sill be stated. The legisla-pendent inspectors for audiuns quamy as, public interest group and last Nosem-tivt clerk read as fonows:
surance r*=rmanbitues of the ucensee for ber both the Chairman of the NRC the construcuan of commercial nuclear The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Poma) poserplants, as described in parasaph (5) of and the head of the Office of Inspec-for himself. Mr. Susroom Mr. Hant. Mr. subsection (21. The pilot program shali in' tor and Auditor admitted that the Macuru. Mr. Caamston, and Mr. Levsw. clude at least three altes at which commer. NRC had indeed been derelict in ats proposes an unprinted amendment num. cial nuclear powerplants are under construe. duties, relying too heavily on the utili.
bered 839-tion. The Co==luton shan select at least ties to check the work of their contrac-Mr. FORD. Mr. President. I ask one site at which quauty assurance and tors. Cindan=d Oas Ac Electric has
. the amendment be,that the reading of quauty contal pmsraans have operated sat.
unnelmaus consent been fined 3200.000 for a widespread
== _ _ with-1sfactorny, and at least two sites with re:ne-The PRESIDING OFFICER. With. did programs underway at which cons: rue-breakdown in its gus11ty assurance cut cbjection,it is so ordered.
tion, quality assurance and quauty control program. Among the ' rules violated deficiencies have been identified in the past, were falsifleation of records supposed Thz amendment is as follows:
The commission may require any changes to supply evidence that quality work On psee 15. after line 23. add a new sec. In existing quality assurance and quauty was done, and harassment and intimi.,
Uon to r*M as foDows:.
control organizations and reladonships that dation of quality control in-Ws by Sac.. (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Com. may be necessary at the selected sites to im. construction worken.
mission is s'2thorized and directed to imple. plement this pDot program-mint and accelerate the resident inspector (d) Not later than eighteen months after Although significant construction program so as to assure the assignment of at the date of enactment of this Act, the Com-deficiencies have not been identified.
least eine resident inspector by the end of mission shan submit a report to the Senate the fact that the lack of sufficient fiscal year 1942 at each site at which a com. and the House of Representadves on the re. quality assurance could result in sert.
mercial nuclear powerplant is under con. suits of the study and the puot program m. ous problems has prompted the NRC struction and construction is more than 15 quired by this section. The report shan in. to require the establishment of a com-percent complete..
clude the recommendations of the r=*
(b) The commission shan conduct a study sion. Includtna any necessary legislauve prehensive quality confirmation pro-af alternate concepts and existing programs changes, and a description of any artm!,A gram to detennine the quality of plant for improving quality assurance and quality trative actions that the Comminion has un-systems important to nuclear safety.
control performance in the construcuon of dertaken or intends to undertake for tm. Deficiencies identified by these pro.
commercial nuclear pov erplants. In con-shan trol performance in the construcuan of nu-proving quality assurance and quality co ducting the study, the r'-mw san sbtain the comments of the public, clear powerplants..
Zimmer. I might add is just on the licenmahold2g constmedon permits and Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the other side of the Ohio River from
- operaung licenses for nuclear powerplants-amendment I am_ offering'is directed Kentucky.
.sa!
stud shal include, not toward the growing problem of 'inad.
Then. Mr. Presidenti there is the be limited to, the-fouoring alternattee con. equate construction of nuclear faciu. matter of Marble Hill at at=*an eepts for improving quauty assurance az.d ties in the United States today, a prob. Ind.,100 miles away from Zimmer and quahty control:
(1) adopung a more prescriptive approach lem caused by poor quality assurance / only 30 miles from Iouisville, the lart-to 'diftning principal architectural and engi-quality control programs on the part est city in Kentucky. For years I have-neering criteria for the construction of com-of the licensees and their contractors, been trying to m1ke sure that con-m:rcial nuclear powerplants that would and by poor safety inspection on the struction work there was being done part of the Nuclear Regulatory Com. properly so that the facility would be ty ebtro b
mission. 'Ihe amendment attempts to the safest possible. Briefly, allegations a
acuans:
establish for the first time procedures were made at Marb!e Hillin early 1979 (2) requiring. as.a condition of the issu.
tace cf construction permits for commercial and mechanisms to correct this intol, that concrete used in the reactor-con-erable state of affairs.
tainment building and in an auxiliary nuclear powerplants, that the licensee dem-onstrate the capability of independent 17 At this moment, it is v'ery possible building was improperly patched and reanaging the effective performance of all that nuclear plants are being built in therefore substandard. After these such a way that they present a danger claims were verified, the licenset at -
'?U*
to the public health and safety. Of tempted to improve its construction sponsibin he ant.
(3) encouraging and obtaining more effec. utmost concern to me is that fact that practices, but eventually had to sh'ut tirs evaluauons. Inspections or audits of two of them border on the Common. down its safety-related work. Only commercial nuclear powerplant construe. wealth of Kentucky and will impact after the insistence of myself and tion by ladependent industry or institution-heavily on my State if an accident others did the NRC finally issue a al creanizations, based upon best experience should occur, stop. work injunction and initiate an and practices:
(4) ree==mtr.ing the Commission's organ!.
Perhaps the most recogn! zed exam-investigation. Work was resumed earli.
ple is Diablo Canyon in California. At er this year after about 1%. years' ment $e e pNUIn."sth this reactor, sited near an earthquake delay, but not. untG substantial im-di objective of deriving improvements in the faultline, blueprints for units one and provements were required in the !!.
aseney's program: and two designating where supports should censee s quality ass. trance and quality (3) requiring. as a condition of the issu. be buut to withstand stress from control programs, ance cf construction permits for commercial earthquakes were switched. Conse-In every one of these cases there is a nuc! car powerplants, that the licensee con-tract er make other arrangements with an quently, if you can imagine such a clearly estab!11hed pattern of fault, thing, unit one supports have been put ry in the wrong place. The NRC voted in The utuities of this country simply ance es i
or must accept the serious responsibility scrifying quauty assurance performance. An November to suspend Pacific Gas &
of building safe nuclear facilities and independent inspector is a third party who Electric's fuel-loading and low-power must recognize the significant differ.
has ns responsibilities for the design or con. Operating license for unit one until the ence between buBding a coal.!! red struction of the plant.
utility satisfactorily completes an ex. plant and a nuc! car powered gener.
g
Merch 29,1SS9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 24S9 ator. Neither they nor their contrac. is to submit n report to the Congress Members cf the nuclear R:gdatory Com-tors enn ignore the unique problem in-on the results of the study and the tr..saion sill be in Cincinnatt on Monday to
}
volved. Shortcuts cannot be taked-pilot program. The report shall in-f%t n p a
on theth mistakes must be thoroughly correct-clude the recommendations of the p
ed, not cetered up. Management and Commission, including any necessary uon should be granted a license to begm op-workers on the site must realize that legislative changes, and a description J
o cratten.
quality assurance / quality control pro-of any administrative changes that the If the NRC's answer is **yes. the Zimmer grams are not established to harass Commission has undertaken or in-stadon, which looms across the Ohio River from this Campbell County tesTi. could them and impede their work. Finally, tends to undertake, for improving begin turning steam heated by a nuclear re-the NRC must inspect more closely quality assurance and quality control action into electricity as early as this the construction of nuclear plants. perfo mance in the construction of nu, summer. And thousands of Kentucklans will They must, in fact, be relentless in clear powerplants.
I*
' be el en b a ef p b$
their oversight duties.
,r th,t e,
h ve The amendment I offer today takes In addition to tightening QA/QC programs and upgrading the safety evacuated in case of a nuclear accident. Util.
a stride toward the goal of safe tom-gty spokesmen, however, say ruch an acci-mercial nuclear powerplant construc-oversight role of the NRC, a direction dent is highly unlikely.
tion. First, it authorizes and direct 3 in which, I am pleased to note, the Residents of parts of three Nc thern Ken-1 l
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agency is already moving, this amend-tucky counties--Campbell, Penceton. and I
I to accelerate its resident inspector pro-ment emphasizes a dimension I have Bracken-c.11 be within 10 miles of Zimmer, I
long advocated-the participation of the area that would face evacuation in case l
gram so as to assure by the end of 1982 the assignment of at least one third parties. As I mentioned earlier, of a serious nuclear accident.
i my efforts were successful in having d,'[*of the co I
resident inspector at each site at independent engineers placed at n rthe o
n which a plant is under construction and more than 15 percent complete.
Marble Hill to insure that previously are within a 50-mile radius of the plant, a zone where officials aar food could be con.
Second,it directs the Co*" ton to unnoticed flawed concrete was proper-taminated during a leak at Zim=er.
[
r ly repaired.
NRC estimates Zimmer could be licensed conduct a study of ways to improve a
quality assurance and quality control Increased inspections by independ. to begin ler. level operadons this summer.
I
{
programs. In doing so, the NRC shall ent industry and institutional organi, when it wo.:Id become one of the few recent I
solicit the comments of the public, in :ations, and the use of independent in-addluons to the nation's list cf operating 1
dustry and the Advisory Committee on spectors for auditing all QA/QC verifi- *** 8'"'#*""8 81*"**'
Reactor Safeguards. The study is to cation responsibilities not only offer a we7 $ ed eeEtsealIN5Sd l
i include, but not be limited to, the con-system of checks and balances by pro-cepts of, first, adopting narrower deft-viding a third layer of safety monitor-end of 1981, according to the NRC. Soaring building cos s combined with lower than-ex.
I n!tions of principal archite *. ural and ing, they also perform another fune-peeted electricity demands caused many engineering criteria that v,% tid serve tion-that of bolstering the public's uti:1ues to reconsider plans to join the nu-as a basis for QA/QC, inspection and confidence in nuclear energy. Prob. clear power boom of the 1960s, and NRC enforce:nent actions; second, requiring lems such as those that have occurred spokesman said.
i at Diablo Canyon Zimmer, and Nevertheless. It is possible that Ztmmer tr et on e a t e 11ce ce e r in n cle d
and q
demonstrate its capabil!ty to ete y regulators the public had left after independently perform all QA/QC re Three Mile Island. If we are going to AltPough Kentucky won't have any nucle.
l-l sponsibilities; third, encouraging more ar power plants. state Disaster and Dner.
'I -
4ffective inspections or audits of com-have nuclear energy in this country it gency Serdees has made plans for dealing f
mercial nuclear facilities by independ safely operated, and its waste must be with potential proble=s at the flu nearby must,be safe-safely constructed, (nt industry and institutienal organ!-
plantz
/
t e
zations; fourth, reexaming the NRC's safely disposed. Nothing less is accept-ZI"*"* "'*# M*** ON** *dCD *ill D' I,h own organizatton and method for qual' able. It is not too much to ask that the ""* #d D
- I^"* I U** #
I Ity assurance development, review and public health and welfare be protected
$bl Coun y, aer t e o o R v r fr inspection, with the objective of deriv
- to the maximum extent possible.
a s4.3 tillien two. unit electricity producer.
l ing improvements in the agency's pro-I believe my amendment is accept-The first unit is expected to open in 1986, I
grams; and fifth, requiring as a cond!- able to the managers of the bill. It has with the seccnd unit arriving in 1987.
-tion of the issuance of a construction been drafted in consultation with the Parts of Trimble and Oldham counties 1
permit, that the licensee contract or Nuclear Regulatory Commission. stil be in the plant's 10-mile evacuation make other arrangements with.an in-Since the House has already held area. Alm st I million Kentuckisns. Includ-dependent inspector for auditing qual
- hearings on the problem of inadequate fe tn h 3
8 ity assurance responsibilities for the r.afety procedures at nuclear power-Phlpp Bend, n li of KnoxvCle on the purpose of verifying quality assurance plant construction sites, I hope that Tennessee Virgin!a border. The Tenne'ssee 3
performance.
the amendment will be retained in Valley Authority said It spend 1981 million Third, and finally, the Commission conference. I urge the adoption of my on the planned two units before deciding is directed to undertake a pilot pro-amendment.
last August to halt construction because of j
gram for assessing the feasibility and Mr. President I ask unanimous con-I wer than-expected growth in customer benefits of implementing one or more sent to have printed in the Rrcono an demand for electricity. If the plant is ever j
3 cf the above-mentioned concepts, pro-article from the Lexington Herald-completed, parts of seven southeastern Ken-viding that the pilot program shall in-Leader of February 28,1981 tucky counties--Harlan. I4tcher, Knott, I
clude the use of independent, fh!rd There being no objection, the article Pike. Perry, Leslie ar.d ',el.1-stil be in the
{
J 50-mue zone.
party inspectors for auditing quality was ordered to be printed in the Hartsville about 50 m!Ies northeast of e
assurarce responsib!!!tles of the licens-RECORD, as follows:
Nashville. near Hartsville Tenn. In 1979,
]
ea. The pilot program shall include at NccLEAn PLANTS R DIATE CONCERN Anot'No TVA deferred two of the four unf ts, and the
=
least three sites at which commercial T^7*
uuhty's directors o
- expected to decide at 1
nuclear power plants are under con.
(By Carol Marie Cropper) their March 4 r%,ug whether to defer the 4
other two units. Part or all of nine Bowling struction. One must be a site at which Mrwron-An Ohio utility begins on QA/QC programs have operated satis. Monday what cou!d be the fmal step before Green area counties-Warren. Logan, Simp-
[
factorily and. two must be sites at it activates a long-delayed $1.25 bution nu-son Allen. Barren, Edmonson. Metcalfe, Monroe, and Cumberland-would be in the g
which significant construction and clear plant on Kentucky's northern border. plant's 50-mue zone.
u QA/QC deficiencies have, been identi-But the probable completion this year of Clinch Rher, a government indastry ex.
i fled in the past.
the first of five nuclear plants near Ken-periment planned near Oak Ridge. Tenn.
4 No later than 18 months after this tucky coincides with the strtuar riait to the This new kmd of nuclear power generator-once-rapid expansion of America's nuclear a breeder reactor-was put on held under
,j
, legislation is enacted, the Commission power industry.
the Carter ad:ntnistration, but President i
I 5
s s
4 q
U
r
$ 2490 d
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 29,1889 i
' Rergan supports tht g3.2 btulin vintur2/11 built, the pita eculd produce tiectncity at almT,st certainly be timr to edeuzte people beigte they wers contamina.ed by radioac. l.'kely to develop thyroid cancer.... The the sqmt tims it makes plutonhun *.39 radiation effects eatend donTwind 300 to tive material.
shich would be fuel to produce more elec.
400 miles from the plant... to the estent tnesty. The target opening date is Septem,
Rartistion is just not a>
- vy as a lot of ~
ber IPS3. Parts of five Kentucky countles-people would have you belee." IJttle said. where it would raise the incidence of cancer and birth defects."
The officiais at Marble HID and at Opponents also any M arble Hill and Wayne, McCreary. Bell. Whitley and 't.immer agreed.
i Knox-s ould be in the 50.rnDe radius.
Kentucky othelany said "no" to nuclear Jeff Godser a 28 year old staff engineer Zimmer may be especially accident-prone.
I at Zimmer, pointed to yard after yard of Both planta have been heattiy crttlened
)
poser during for=er Gov. Julian Carrou'a administration. Thomas E. IJttle. DES di. buttons and warning lighta in the control durms their construccon..
1 rector ci operations, said Carroll made it toom and erplained how the system is de' Cortstruction of safety.related areas of the i
ciecr that nuclear plants sere not wanted in signed to detect and automaticany berin Marble HiU plant halted from August 1919 Kxntucky.
correcting anything from a change in water until AprU 1981 while the NRC investigated The no-nukes policy has continued under pressure tn the nuclemt reactor to an in. complaints of defective concrete construe.
, th? Brown administration. he aald but the crease in ts.diation levels leaving the plant's tion at the pitnt. The NRC eventutur de.
r state has been poseriess to stop construc-cided there sere no s!gnificant defects, but rents.
tion of the two plants on its border and the There is a provision for manual override Marble H111 had to upgrade its quality con.
c.her three plants nearby, and there are numerous c.ambinations of trol Kintucky tried =FWuDy to prevent buttons to push.
"We didNt have enough properly qual).
E the NRC ! rom issuing a construction permit But the rnost interesting buttons are four f!ed people sith sufficient nuclear construe.
tt Marble Enl. but the state's position red ones. two sitting on ettner side of the seemed reisted more to the pusht of Ken. main reactor panet Those buttons are a was int along properly " Bott said.
tucky coal than to concerns about the kind of emergency provtsion.12 pushed.
Construction problems at Zimmer also safity of Kentuckians.
they shut down the reactor.
hane made headitnes. The NRC admitted Jthn U. Bott Jr nuclear regulation and Godsey described how the penets of radio. last year mat an tark 1mesurah h affairs manager for Pubuc Service Indiana, active uranium would be housed in tnetal such charges by its own agtney was faulty, which is butiding the plant, said, "Their rods, bundled inside a steel reactor vessd. "Ihe NRC fined CO&E $200.000 in Novem,
~
(Kentucky officials'1 contention was that we how AD that would be contained in one con. be 1981 for fanures in W cuauty assur.
crete enclosure that is housed inside the re. ance program at the plant. Last Wednesday, should use low. cost Kentucky coal."
IJttle added. "Let's face it. Nuclear planta Inforced concrete reactor buGdMr.
CO&E agreed to pay rather than appeal.
don't burn coat" At Marble Hat. the reactor bunding tits "We do agree that deficiencies eatsted in Th' most visible endence of the arrival of on 10 to 12 feet of concrete that was poured implementing our quality assurance pro.
th2 t aclear age in the Ohio Vancy is the on top of a solid rock foundation, said Brad gram, and in exercising sufficient survel).
Zimaer station's 479. foot water tower. Bishop, enedia services supervisor for Public lance om our construccon contractor, the which can be seen for miles along the Ken
- Service Indiana. The suo-thaped budding Henry J. Kaiser Co but we believe that we tucky banks of the Ohio.
that sits on that foundation and wn! house have funy corrected these deficiencies."
Reed Shaw. 70. of Mentor, whose home. the nuclear reactor is bunt of steel with a 4 town is in the plant's shadow. said he thinks foot. thick concrete wsD outside and two in. M&E President WD11am Dickhoner sald.
An NRC report released in 1981 rated he and his neighbors could not escape fast terior waHa that add another 10-12 feet of both Zlmmer and Marble HID construction enough if there was a radiation leat, reinforced concrete around the reactor, he below average, but officials at both plants Even if a leak never comes. Shaw said. said, 3. Mentor residents already have lost. Els 64 These bu!! dings are designed to withstand argued that those ratings were based on said., farm used to be worth $100;000. he earthquakes and tornadoes, plant ofncials problems that have since beco correcte acre Mary and Don Reder are two former Now,I can't get 850,000 for it.
said. They must ba strong enough to survive schoolteachers who now spend their time 4
About '20 mnes to the west in Trimble the crash of a commercial jetuner, ma:ord. representing Mentor in its fight against f
County-Bedford. the county seat and home ing to h NRC,
. to Zimmer. Dey wn! resuma their batue j
people-ts lust eight enDes from The safety features bunt into the two Monday, when the hearings start again, plants are obviously enassive, expensfre and They rul argue, as they have argued il Jack Greenwood, editor of the Trimble intricate.
Banner Democrat. said narrow roads would But nuclear power opponents and some of before. that the proposed evacuation plans the plants point to problems at Three MIIethe Kentucky residents wh maamacuation impossible.
"I don't see any reason for the people of For people like the Reders. Buntin of the Trimble County or Kentucky to safeguard Island and other, nuclear power planta as themselves from something that's bad that's proof that the safeguards can fall.
DES said. there ls a solution.
g!ing to benefit some other state " be said.
~DU got a nasty surprise at Three Mile "If I Ilved in that area and I sas as usuch NAt everyone in Bedford complains. L. E.
Island." said Henry W. Kendan, a physics afraid of what's going on as, for instance, Stolth, who works at the local Chevron sta, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of the Reders appear to be, then I'd aimply tion said the plant is providing lobs for Technology and one of the founders of the more."
lom! citizens and there's "nothing you can do cbout it no way "
Union of Concerned Scientist, a group op.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am Gen. WDbur Budtin Jr executive director posed to nuclear power. Things that they Dleased to acceDt and suDPOrt this cf the state DES. said his staff has prepared thought were impossible were happening.=
amendment and to join as a cosponsor, Past nuclear power plant accidents have Indeed, over the past several Inonths, erset.ation plans for Eentucklans living not been caused by such dramatic events as near Zimmer and sta develop similar plans earthquakes or bomb explosions but by the Commission has identified a for any other nuclear plant buut within 50 mDes ti the state ltne.
breakdowns inside the plant that anowed number of quality assurance and qual.
Thick books desertbe the state's plans to radfonctive steam of water to escar.e from ity control problems at several nuclear erscuate the 19.000 people living in Zim, the maze of pipes that circulate in the reac* powerplant construction sites. I be.
tor budding.
lleve that this amendment provides an mer's 10-mile zone to nearby Mason. Harri.
Nuclear power advocates argue that after important step toward addressing som Grant and Boone counties.
Pour rooms at the DES office budding in 25 years of nuclear power plant operations, these problems by strengthening Franki rt are equipped with phones to there has yet to be an accident that resulted NRC's resident inspector program and in a single death, Zimm;r, maps and a computer terminal Robert Gray, chairman of the board of di. by exploring a nurnber of alternatives printing out information such as the wind directions at Z!mmer and the rate of rad 1 rectors of Save the Vancy, Inc., a group to improve quality assurance perform.
stun release. (!! a dangerous radiation leak made up primarily of Kentucky and Indiana residents that has opposed Marble Hin. NRC have pg occurred, it probably would be a release into argued that it was just a matter of time.
. tha s,17. DES o!!!cials say.)
"There is a major nuclear accident out tor at each nuclear poWerplant Con.
Out DES officials said the public's percep.
there. It's statistically very likely.... We struction site by the end of fiscal year tiin af the dangers of nuclear energy are ex.
arterated.
Will see dead bodies."
1982.
Kendall argues against the assertion,that.
-f think a misconception that really radiation from a nuclest power plant is not Second, the amendment requires a causes the public a lot of problems is that a that dangerous. If the ultimate nuclear study of existing programs and alter.
nuclect pos er plant is going to blow up and power disaster-a meltdown-occurred. Ken. DEtC CNGts iM bprohg quaMty you'rs going to have to run for your 11te," tucky's 10-m11e evacuation tone will not be assurance and quality co Uttir said. "That is almost inconceivable."
Even if radiation leaked into the atmos. enough he said, "In a major nuclear accident, every chud ance in the construction of nuclear pher2. DES o!!icials said, there would that was within 50 miles donwind would be powerplants. Pive such alternate con.
cepts are speciDed in the amendment.
I
E March ff,1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Third, the amendm:nt calls ftr r.
piltt program consisting cf pr: grams programs have operated satisfactorily.
- S 2491 now underway to gain actual experi-and at least two must be sites at w The amendment would also provide -
ence with one cr more of these con-construction, quality assurance, hich for the establishment by the NRC of a and cepts at at least three construction quality control deficiencies have been quallty assurance pilot program for at identified in the past. As I understand least three sites. The pilot program sites.
The concepts that are required to be it, this requirement is intended to pro-must include the alternate concepts studied under the amendment include vide information on a range of sites, under study. It must also include proj-the development of a more precise ap-for the purpose of assessing past qual-ects underway that use independent measures that have been undertakenity assurance perf proach to defining criteria for plant construction, simDar to the technical y,
specifications that are now developed where defleiencies have been found.
The amendment is a forceful re-for plant operation: and the require-and the effectiveness and appropriate-sponse to the continuing disclosures of
,f ment that a licensee demonstrate the ness of ongoing programs for third' design errors and construction mis-ability to independently perform qual-party auditing, and other alternate haps at. plant construction sites ity assurance and quality control re-concepts at these sites.
around the country. As NRC Chair.
4.
sponsibilities for the plant. Under the characterize sites as good or bad inThis requirement is n latter concept, the Cornmi"lon would M
determine the point at which a licens-orum:
terms of their ance programs.present quality assur. hs$Neards ee would be required to demonstrate Thus, mere selection
. this capability, for the pilot program in either catego-and the 'means by strated. One such means, for examplewhich this capability would be demon
- cation th car power cceptable or inexcusable. There have been lapses of that would fit this concept is owner, unacceptable quality assurance pro.. anany kinds-in desisn analyses, resultins in
^
built-in destsu errors; in poor construction certification by the American Society gram. In addition, I beneve it is the of Mechanical Engineers, which can intent of the sponsors of the amend-practices: ta falsined documents: tn harrass.
ment of quality contro1 now be granted after the plant is 15 ment that the amendment be imple- '"""*' "#*I^I"' *I '** personnel; and inad-percent completed-mented so as to avoid delays or disrup-more effective use of inspections andA third concept to be studied is the ly with resp 8
e p!!ot progra audits by independent industry and in, Mr. President referred to is the discovery in Novem-stitutional organtzstions. Such organ!- ment is an appI beneve the amend. ber 1981 of numerous errors in the ropriate step toward design and calculations for the Diablo Dectdcal and Dectmnic Engineers,zations might include the Institute of correcting the ance problems that we'have seen in Canyon project. But there have been the American Society of Mechanical recent months, and I am pleased to co. others as well, less pubuciaed but Engineers, and the Institute for Nucle' sponsor the amendment, equally important.
I thank the distinguished Senator In late November 1981, the NRC G
Pres en t! te or uc e from Kentucky for his fine work on proposed a fine of $200,000 against the i
}
Power Operations has recently begun this amendment. I believe that he has Cincinnati Gas & Dectric Co., for a program that provides for the estab-made a most valuable and thoughtful sloppy quality assurance during con.
g lishment of criteria for evaluating nu he has bcontribution with the amendment, and plant. In a struction of its E *'
een most cooperative and cing the fine, James ce and t
n I d or helpful on the issue as has his staff.
Keppler, NRC regional mAmWator.
audits to verify compUance with these I have no further comments with stated, "I can't tell you,there aren't
^
criteda.
other mmers out there.
regard to the amendment. I certainly This industrywide program is a In January 1982, the NRC proposed endorse its approval.
promising step toward improving qual.
6 a fine of $500,000 the' construction of nuclear power, introduced by Senatcr Foa against Boston its Pilgrim nuclear powerplant. The i
plants, and may wen be the best would strengthen the quality assur. NRC staff reported the alleged vicla-option for bringing much needed im, ance and quality control programs at tions reflected "a lack of management provement to this area. I beneve the review and attention that is manifest.
nuclear powerplants under construe. ed by such problems in d industry is to be commended for this tion.
initiative, and I beneve the Commk.
nance, and operating practices."
The Ford amendment mandates slon should pay particular attention to Boston Edison was accused of failing th!s concept in developing its require. that, by the end of fiscal year 1982, atfor 2% years to meet Federal stand-area of quality assurance and qualityments and recommendations in the sig ards on a system which is designed to cial nuclear powerplant is under con. remove explosive hydrogen gas from control.
quire the study of the concepts of im. Finally, the amendment would re. more acefdent.
proving the Commission's organization NRC toThe amendment also requires the It is in the best interests of utlUtfes, conduct a comprehensive as Chairman Palladino stated, to meet for quauty assurance review, develop.
ment, and inspection, and of requiring study of alternate concepts and exist. the high quality assurance standards surance and quality control perform.ing programs for impro the use of independent, third party in.
spectors for auditing and verifying ss t ey quality assurance performance. Pro. powerplants.ance in the construction of commercial are not met. But there is an conillet of interest in this area that grams now underway at several sites that involve the use of third party in.
Two of the alternate concepts which one cannot ignore. That is the conflict caused by the fact that the utility spectors for auditing quality assurance the NRC would be required to study building the plant is also responsible performance would be included as part are, one, obtaining more effective eval.
for the plant's quality assurance of the p!!ot program.
uations, inspections, or audits of 1
Mr. President, I would like to pro-powerplant construction by independ. ting corners to save money on. Cut.
1 con-
{
struction can often encan cutting vide one clarification on the. selection ent organizations; and two, requiring, of sites to be used for the pilot pro-as a condition of the issuance of con.
corners on safety regulations.
I gram. The amendment. requires that struction permits, that the licensee The Ford amendment attempts to at least one must be a site at which withcontract or make other arrangements minimize this conflict of interest' by
[
quahty assurance and quality control upgrading and increasing NRC efforts an independent inspector to verify quality assurance performance.
in this critical area. The amendmeqt l
provides a meaningful alternative ta l
ia
/. i
'S 2492
' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE th2 ttring ci discl6sur;s and the string March ff,1982 Th? PRESIDING OyFICER. The r
cf fin;s.
The cmendment also provides qual. Sen*_ tor from Colorado / recognized.
plants. The study must specifica!!y Air. ILART. I thant t." Senator consider requiring. as a condition for ity assurance before the fact, in effect Mr. President construction permits that the utnity before the utility has spent a prodi. strongly suppor. I am a responsor. and t this amendment of-contract with an independent, third.
glous amount to build the plant. In !cred ~ by the distinguished Senator party inspector for quality cont th3 process. It may save the utilities a from Kentucky.
Perhaps more important, the Ford ification.
lot of headaches, expensive delays in The amendment MH begin the construction time, and costly fines. much.needed task of upgrading the amendment would establish
's-pilot M:re importantly, it will place safety quality control and quahty assurance prograrn for at least three s!tes where before development, and thereby programs at nuclear powerplants powerplants are under construction to better protect the public health and under constructjon. I agree with him assez.s the benefits of using saf;ty.
on the importance of this effort. I con-ent third party inspectors to perform
~
o hir. LEVIN. Air. Pre'sident, I would lik2 to congratulate my colleague from gratulate him for offering this amend. the utility's quality assurance and ment.
quality control verification responsibil.
K;ntucky for proposing such a con.
I allne myself very strerigly with it itles. The assessment under this pilot structive amendment to the Nuclear and urge its adoption-program is one that the Congress R gulatory CommMion authorintion Construction defielencies, and inade* shold have required the NRC to make bill. As a cosponsor of this amend. quacies in licensees
- quahty assurance / long ago. I appreciate the ment, I would urge my colleagues to quality control programs have long distingushed Senatar from Kentucky accept this prudent step.
plagued the U.S. commer,cial nuclear in encouraging the Senate to address One of the major problems facing power program. The recent disclosure this weakness in the U th2 nuclear power industry is the in, of serious construction errors at the nuclear power program S. commercial creasing lack of pubuc confidence in I urge the ac.
Diablo Canyon powerplant, and the ceptance of this amendment.
tha safety of nuclear power. For years 3200.000 %ne levied by NRC against Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank wa were told that no accidents were Cincinnati Gas & Electric for having the distinguished Senator from Wyo.
possible--until accidents started occur-an inadequate QA/QC program at its ming (Mr. Sntrson) and the distin.
Ing. Regulators told us their guidelines Wmmer powerplant, indicate these guished Senator from Colorado (Mr.
w;ra foolproof-until it was discovered fact, may have gotten worse. problems have not disapxared and, in men that major errors had occured. I be.
li:v3 the amendment offered by Sena.
NRC Chairman Palladino strongly No two Senators and their staff ter Foan could help both prevent mis-struction deficiencies and inadequaclescriticized the nuclear i takes and assure the public that qual.
ity control will be required. Under in us QA/QC pmgrams. He ta2 amendment here that heads us in the n ng such a program, the utility building a Pubuc health and safety cc.siderations as right direction as it relates to the nuclear plant, the NRC, which must 11 wen as economie impusmes dktate un of safety of our nuclear generating facili.
cense and regulate nuclear power *
' 8
- gje3, plants, and the public paying for and ing and Mr. President, I yield back the re.
n el ar t.
en living next door to the plant can see if construcuon or operation fans below the highest standards, the entire industr> 1: mainder of my time.
it meets all quality requirements.
In my State of Michigan there has hur, * *
- A number of deficiencies at sorne The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does plan 4 have come to my anention which the Senator from Wyoming yield back been a certain amount of mistrust con.
show a surprising lack of prciessiond= in his time as well?
cerning the quality control of a nucle-the unstrueuon and pnparzuon for ope.
Mr. SniPSON. hir. President, yes, I ar plants. Those building plants have "u
]h fbe do.
assured us that they will be safe. What bm or The PRESIDING OFFICER./The better way to verify quality control shoulders of management * *
- tf the nucle-y question is on agreeing to the amend.
than to have such a plant participate ar industry does not do its put. no amount in o new system of independent inspec. of regulaterr reform Mu sate it from the ment of the Senator from Kentucky, Lors?O consequences of its osu fanures to achieve The amendment (UP No. E39) was the quauty of construction and plant oper. agreed to.
Th1 PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the suons it must have for its own weu being Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to m va and manager of the bul yield 3M r the an ty t
udu tm reconsider the vote by which the back their time?
h t' Mr. HART addressed the Chair.
have recently come to urht. I am not con. amendment was agreed to.
g e
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I Tha PRESIDING OFFICER. Who vinced that an of the indunry has been doing sts part.
move to lay that rnotion on the table.
y yi:!ds time to the Senator from Colo-In addition to the l The motion to lay on the table was rad;7 agreed to.
g Mr. HART. Mr. President. I have alism in some cases,ack of profession.
noted by Chair.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, will the f
tim 2 I think under the time agreement man Paladino, the quality control ef. Senator yleid rue some time on the' cf my own on the bill or on this forts by utilities also will suffer from a bill?
amendment..
nawed regulatory philosophy: An in.
b Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I be.
Tb2 PRESIDING OFFICER. Does herent connlet of interest arises be. Deve I have very limited time remain.
f th2 Senator wish to use time on the cause the utility constructing the ing on the bill.
bul?
powerplant. which naturally seeks to e
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we minimbe construction costs. also has May I have a review of that, please?
p are en the Ford amendment. There is the responsibility for a::suring and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The y
c tim 2 cgreernent on the Ford amend-controlling the quality of construe. manager of the bul has 5 minutes and th m;nt which is now being used.
t!on-efforts that could increase the 42 seconds remaining on the bulitself.
rp The PRESIDING OFFICER. The total cost of the project.
Mr. SmiPSON. How much time does ig I support the Ford amendment be. my colleague from Colorado have re.
is Parliam:ntarian advises me that
. maining?
und;r the terms of the time agree. cause at seeks to minimbe the inher.
j mint, the time for the Ford amend. ent conflict of interest that results The PRESIDING OFFICER. The qu ment is actually controlled by the Sen. when the utility building the power. Senator from' Colorado has 30 minutes s
remaining.
rei ttor from Kentucky.
plant bears responsibility for assuring Mr. FORD. Mr. President. I yield the quality of construction. In particu-Mr. HART. Mr. President, there ap-ec; such time as the distinguished Senator lar, the amendment directs the NRC parently is some desire on the part of t,p from Colorado m!gb.t need of my 30 to study alternate concepts for Im. a number of Senators to speak under Ik, proving quality assurance and quality time on the bill. The Senator from tninutes.
t.o control in the construction of power. Pennsylvania first requested time, and cat I am prepared to yield time to him. I td Ase
- .. :..c >
s.
o.
? w, ;a
. - x.:...
.s m.. ~. c. u +.. v.
.,,o..
March S3,1989 CO'NGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2493 wonder if the Senator from Idaho the opportunity for a hearing, assures nia has move ahead with an innovative-could tell me how much time he is re.that plant operations will not be dis. plan. But any successful effort is going 1
questing?
rupted in those cases where there is no to require substantial participation by Mr. SYMMS. About 5 minutes. I serious safety question involved.
the Federal Government, and is going would say; 3 minutes r light do it.
I believe that these budgetary and to require substantial participation Mr. HART. I yield not to exceed 5 reform measures serve as an impor-and assistance by the Nuclear Regula.
s minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
tant first step in improving the effi-tory Comm:ssion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ciency and effectiveness of the nuclear As we consider this bul, I think Con-Senator from Idaho is recognized.
regulatory process in this country, and gress should. attend to the problem at Mr. SYMMS Mr. President I wish I strongly support passage of the bul. TMI and work in a unified way to pro-to thank my good friend from Colora-Mr. President, I yield back the re-vide a national solution to that prob-do for yielding me the 5 minutes.
mainder of my time.
lem because it is realistically a nation-I thank him and the distinguished Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. al problem and one which has to be chairman of the committee, the Sena-The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who solved if there is to be further develop-t ter from Wyoming, for their efforts to yields time?
ment of nuclear energy in the United bring this bill to the full Senate.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 5 States.
Mr. President, I am in support of minutes to the Senator from Pennsyl.
There must be appropriate assur-I this bill.
vania-ances of safety, there must be appro-There are a number of significant The PRESIDING OFFICER. The priate assurances that in the event of provisions in the bin, as reported by Senator from Pennsylvania is recog* accident there will be a proper re-P the Environment and Public Works nized for 5 minutes.
sponse to see to it that those in the Committee that I would like to men-ramrz x=.z tstan area are properly cared for and prop-tion briefly. I believe that these provi-Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distin-erly taken care of.
siens will have a positive impact in guished Senator from Colorado for I thank the Senator from Colorado t
terms of enhancing safety, and at the yielding me this time.
for yielding the time. Mr. President, I same time should result in real im-Mr. President, in the consideration yield the floor, provement, in regulatory efficiency in of this bin I believe that a substantial the nuclear powerplant licensing proc-analysis is required of the pending Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send ess.
problems of Three Mile Island in the an amendment to the desk and ask for i-First, the blu designates funding for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as its immediate consideration.
several NRC safety programs. These they relate to the broader national as-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The include reactor safety research work pects of the development of nuclear clerk win report.
on fast breeder reactors, including sup-energy.
port for the licensing of the Clinch The incident at TMI on March 29 The legislat!ve clerk read as foDows:
River Breeder Reactor, safety research 1979, has adversely affected Pennsyl.
The Senator from Wyoming odr. Ste-and licensing review work on high-vania in at least two ways: First, som proposes an unprinted amendment E-temperature,- gas-cooled reactors; and higher electric rates for both home m2mbered en research work related to the loss-of-and industry; and, second, an uneas!.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President I ask Duid test facility. This f acility, in par-ness about the safety of citizens living unanimous consent that further read-ticular, Mr. President, has provided near nuclear generating plants.
ing of the amendment be dispensed extremely useful information to the This has resulted in a depressed with.
Commission, the nuclear industry, and economy for the TMI area and stimu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-the pubuc on the validity of the NRC's lated an active concern about safety out objection, it is so ordered, f
requirements for nuclear reactor by groups of citizens.
The amendment is as fonows:
i emergency core cooling systems, and Beyond the immediate impact of on page 6. after une 13, add /a new section the blu would permit this valuable Three Mile Island on the Common-105 to read as fonorc work to go forward over the next 2 wealth of Pennsylvania, the Three "Sec.105. Funds authorized to be appro.
3 years.
Mile Island incident has had. I sug. priated under this Act snan be used by the L
E Second, the bH1 grants to the Com-gest, a serious effect on the develop. Commt.uion to expedite the estat,Ushment of safety goals for nuclear reactor reguta-mission the authority to issue interim ment of nuclear euergy around the uen. The development of safety goals and operating licenses for new nuclear Nation.
powerplants through 1983. I believe I believe it is imperative that an im-ME,fo"dd be E
td t
this provision is particularly essential mediate answer be found for the prob-mum extent pracucable and shall precede, to insure that there will not be unnec-lems at TMI if there is to be any real-unless the Com* ton decides otherwise.
F essary delays in the operation of new istic possibility of developing nuclear the issuance of other regulations conte =-
plants that are unrelated to significant energy in this Nation.
plated by the commission that could affect I
safety issues' Even though there has Ari accident such as that at TMI engineered safety features, siting require-been considerable fluctuation in the could have happened anywhere, and it ments. or mergency pwnt?.
projected delays for these plants, the is only a matter of happenstance that Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Pres! dent I am potential for costly and unnecessary it occurred in Pennsylvania. Had the offering this' amendment which, if delays remains a possibility until the nuclear industry anticipated such a adopted win require the NRC to move present licensing backlog is removed. problem I think there would have forward expeditiously with the estab-The bal, as reported by the commit-been a widespread movement to create lishment of a safety goal for nuclear tee, eliminates this potential in a re-an insurance fund with companies reactor regt.lation. Last year, this sponsible manner that assures the con-owning nuclear plants, contributing a body adopted a simnar provision as tinued protection of the put'ic health sman amount of money based on an part of the NRC authorization blu for and safety.
insurance principle so that in the fiscal year 1981. Unfortunately, that Third, the biU would remove a re-event of such an accident there would provision was not enacted due to the quirement for advance hearings on have been a fund to pay for cleanup.
failure of the House to act on that leg-certain power reactor license amend-That, unfortunately, was not done in islation.
=
ments that could serve as a source of advance. Once the accident occurred it As you know, Mr. President, an un-costly delay and disruption of plant is obviously difficult to get the indus-precedented number of new regulatory operation. This provision allows those try to do retroactively what would requirements for nuclear powerplants license amendments that the Commis-have been much easier to do prospec-has resulted from the accident at
=
sion determines do not involve signifi-tively.
Three Mlle Island. Included among cant safety issues to be put into effect Senator HUNz and I and others have the major regulatory initiatives that before any requested hearing is held. Introduced legislation in Congress, and the Commission has undertaken are Again, this provision while preserving Governor Thornburgh of Pennsylva-rules to alter siting requirements.
t
(
b
'S 2494 CONGRESSIONAL RECO.RD-SENATE March ff,18SS (xpand the current d'. sign bas;s far Mr. HART. Mr. PresidInt, along Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I ask nucitar reactors. and change (mirgin. cith Senator Srurson
.1 the past I cy planning requirements. While I have supported the t N of a safety ing of the amendmen unanimous consent that further read-strongly support the NRC's efforts to goal which this amencr.ent is directed upgrafde these and other safety re-toward.
with.
quirements. I am concerned that there is a persistent lack of criteria and ob-To some extent that goal will pro-The PRESIDING OmCER. With-jectives to provide a coherency and di-vide a benchmark for NRC safety reg-out objection. It is so ordered.
ulations and lead to a consistent regu-The amendment is as follows:
rection to the definition of new regula-latory scheme.
On page 12. after line 19, insert a new see,
tory requirements and of their appl!-
tion to read as fouost cation to existing and future nuclear At the same time, perhaps I am not powerplants.
as sanguine as the Senator from Wyo-Ste.. ta) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ming about how useful such a goal will as amended, is amended by adding a new To assure reasonable pro.tection of th7 beslth and safety of the public, be for two reasons: First, it is extreme. section 231 to read as fouost th; quality of the structures, systems, ly difficut to quantify subjective as.
"Sse. 237. Resident Inspectora.-
and components of nuclear power-sessments of comparative risks, and to
- a. Notwithstanding any regulations pro-plants must be designed, engineered. determine how much risk we consider mulgated by the President pur i
52 es built, and operated in order to achieve acceptable; and, second, even if the of, pompd;
+
,y pe tha desired degree of performance.
NRC can develop a quantified safety ar Regulatory Commission for uministra-We have this absence of a safety goal. It is equally difficult to apply tive expemes are available. under such regu.
goal, and I think that inhibits and that goal in specific regulatory deci-lations as the Commit <lon may prescribe may preclude addressing the threshold sions. How will sozne general assess. and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate. for reimbursement of a!! or qu;stion of whether a particular new ment of acceptable risk, even in nu.
part of the fonorins expenses of a resident requirement is necessary to achieve merical terms, help the NRC to decide inspector of the commisslors, relocatins be-th3 desired level of safety and such de. whether to requre, for example add tween two NRC duty stations. for whom the terminations must be made on a case-tional warning sirens for an em,ergen! f
- "uon cy plan. additional trMntne for &
d r Section 5 2 by-case basis without clear and con-o sistent guidance from the Comm!uion powerplant operator of an additional Title 5. U.S.C.--(1) Points or morgtare loan en the standards that should be ap-few inches of concrete in a contain-origination fees charged by mortgage lender plitd and we need to correct that.
ment wall? The simple answer to that to resident inspe*ctor on sale or purchase of Succinctly then. Mr. President. the question. Mr. President is I just do a residence, not to exceed the lessor of i
$8000 or a percent of the sale price of the I
best approach toward identifying the not know.
residence (8 pointsr. (2) Interest on, and desired level of safety for nuclear I do think a safety goal will serve as i
ther expenses of. a bridse" or swing-l poret reactors is the establishment of a useful vehicle for debating "how safe I ""* U"It'd ** I 80 #*F' "I I"***** **
a " safety goal." Indeed, the NRC's is safe enough" the chronic nuclear [wn
[eq i
vance to purchase a second prope$
Lessons fearned Task Force. in its power issue. Moreover It will at least property to e
report following the accident at Three provide a general objective that we rty prior i
to the sale of the first property (3) The cost mil 2 Island, emphasized the impor-hope NRC's safety regulations will of an osuer a title insurance po;ucy paid
(
tance of a safety goal in achieving a achieve.
by the resident inspector on a residence pur-
)-
vin echoed by the Kemeny and Rogo-President. I endorse and support the
- b. ne commftelon is authorized to enter In spite of those reservations. Mr.
balanced regulatory perspective, a chased by him.
vin reports as well. As recently as Sep-amendment of the Senator from Wyo *into e ntracts for W prMston of nlocauen ming and I urge its passage.
tember of last year. the Commf"fon's ovYmm Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe.
The PRESIDING OmCER. Who gers r wh t
a guards, in commenting on the staff's yields time?
penses of travel and transportation under proposed rule on reactor site criteria, Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator Section si2ual of Tiue 5. of the / United States Code. In relocauns between duty sta-reiterated Its support for establish-and yleid back the remainder of my tions. includins assistins in the sale of em-ment of a safety goal when it stated time on the amendment.
playees' residences.
that The PRESIDING OmCER. Does
- c. Notwithstanding the prcmisions of Sec.
criteria ' back his time?the Senator from Colorado also yield tion e3sa of Ttue 31, the LGe ne dectsfon on reactor site t ry CommMion may authoriz,e the Execu.
s$1 Mr. HART. I yield back the remain- $e'o$ N N en Ele es i
n ety phDo ye s 1 ciently specific destsn requirements for nu. der of my time.
e r clest powerplants.
The PRESIDING O m CER. All located at resident inspection offices for It is in light of these recommenda. time having been yielded back. the transportation of resident inspectors be.
tween their domiciles and offletal duty sta.
ti;ns. Mr. President, that I am propos. Question is on agreeing to the amend.
tions, when public transportation is unavan.
ing that NRC move forward swiftly able or impractical.".
with the establishment of a safety e amendment (UP No* 840) was (b) of W amounts auhrtzed to be ap.
goat The amendment I offer today agreed to.
propriated by this Act. the Commit <!on may provides that, unless the Commfuton Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I use up to $1.162.000 in fiscal year 1982 and thruld decide othersise, the develop. move to reconsider the vote by which up to $1.129.000 in fiscal year 1983 pursuant ment and promulgation of a safety the amendment was agreed to.
to the authority contained in subsection (a) goal should precede other major rul.
Mr. HART. I move to lay that of this section.
making actidtles related to engineered motion on the table.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. one of safity features, siting requirements, or The motion to lay on the table was the principal recommendations that cmtrgency planning. By placing high agreed to.
each of the major Investigations into pritrity on the establishment of a m m e m r no.ses the accident at Three Mlle Island was saf;ty goal and methods for its appil.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I send that the Nuclear Regulatory Commis.
cation, the NRC will then have' lafd another amendm'ent to the desk and slon should expand its resident inspec-th2 essential groundwork for the adop.
tor program. That was a consistently ti:n of requirements related to engt. ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OmCER. The threaded through observation. The neered safety features siting. and clerk will report the amendment.
Congress responded by authorizing cmergency planning.
The assistant legislative clerk read and appropriating funds for expanding I urge the support of the amend. as follows:
this vitallink in the Co Mr. HART addressed the Chair.
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. proved safety program.mmission's im-mint.
The resident Th2 PRESIDING OmCER. The Sturson) foi himself and Mr. HARr. inspector provides a continuing Com.
mission presence onsjte gt proposes an unprinted amendment Senator from Colorado.
nuc]egy numbered 841.
power reactors. These inspectors are well versed in their sites' characteris.
I March f2,1SSS CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2495 tics, nuclear technolog7. and the 11 their homes and duty stations. The eenste's procedures t.nd personnel. a=endment also places a cap on these resumes consideration of the pending 1
business, which is S.1207. but not
. They monitor day terday activities and rei=bursements to assure they wi!! prior to Monday. March 29.
4 licensee performance and they are not exceed $1.1G2.000 in fiscal year I further ask unanimous consent ava!!able to respond quhly to events 1982, and St.129.000 in fiscal year that this agreement be subject to the which couM affect put!!c health and 1913.
minority leader's approval anc may be safety, both onsite and in the local So that is the purpose of the amend-vitiated by the minority lesder at any area. The Commissien's goal is to have ment. Throughout our entire delibera-1 a resident inspector at each operating tiens since I have been on this ccm-time prior to the close of business to.
morrow.
power reactor and each reactor under mittee and subcommittee. both as The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is construction by the end of fiscal year ranking minority member and as there objection? Without objection. It 1982.
chairman, the resident inspector is so ordered.
The Commie =fon insures impartiality i
of these inspectors; firs. by relocating became the single most important in.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I have j
each inspector every 3 to 5 years and, spector at recreating and creating con. no further amendments to this bDI second, by restricting certain activities fidence in nuclear power generation.
today. We shan return to its consider.' i of the inspector and the inspector's I urge support of this amendment famuy to avoid even the appearance of that would insure that the CommN ation as I have just suggested, wh we shall take up two other amend-u sten will fully implement this vital ments under the previous time agree-a conflict of interest. These restrictive safety and health program.
1 measures include the prohibition of ment, also.
famuy members from working for the Mr. HART. Mr. President. I support I appreciate the patience and coop-and cosponsor the amendment by the erstion of the ranking minority licensee or the licensee's contractors. Senator from Wyoming. The resident member of the subc which are often the principal employ. inrpector's program is necessary to im. HAar).
ers in the area, and the prohibition of I
other forms of contact with licensee or prove the protection of.public health Mr. President, at this time I believe t
licensee contractor employees.
and safety, as outlined by the Senator we are able to return to the censidera-As a result of these requirements, as frem Wyoming. This provision re-tion of other business.
4 weU as of NRC's difficu:ty in compet-moves some of the difficulty in at-ing with private indus ry to provide trscting resident inspectors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
salary, incentives, and cther benefits, The NRC can meet its goal of having out objection. S.1207 will be set aside.
l the Commi=mion is experiencing diffi-a resident inspector at every operating culty in recruiting and retaininr the plant by the end of the fiscal year.
.REOUI.ATORY REPORM k
highly trained and cot:petent individ.
This is a worthwhDe and important The PRESIDING OFFICER. The uals needed to make the resident in-amendment. I urge its adoption. I clerk win state the pending business.
yie!d back the remainder of my time.
spector program effective. Thus, the Commt== ion may not be able to meet The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bu1 (8. lo80) te amend the Administra.
l its goal of having an inrpector at each the Senator from Wyoming also yield tive Procedure Act to reeutre Federal agen.
I back his time?
i operating power reacter and at each eles to analyse the effects of rules to im-i reactor under constructon by the end Mr. SDdPSON. I do yield back my prove their effecuveness and to decrease
!)
of fiscal year 1982.
time on that amendment. Mr. Presi. their compliance easts: to provide for a peri.
dent.
odic re*w of regulations. sad for other -
One major obstacle in meeting this
[
objective is the financial cost involved The PRESIDING OFFICER. All purposes.
I in relocating, especially in light of time having been yielded back, the The Senate resumed consid.eration very tight housing and financial mar. questionis on agreeing to the amend. of the bDI.
8 f
kets. While some of these costs are re.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President the eco '
ment.
imbursable under current government The amendment (UP No. 841) was nomic recovery program as o,riginally a Teed to.
statutes and regulations. a significant proposed by President Reagan consist.
share must stal be borne by the relo-Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider ed of four major goals: tax reduction; cating inspector. A second problem the vote by which the amendment was control of Government spending; a agreed to, area involves the costs of commuting consistent monetary policy; and reduc-f between the resident inspector's rest.
Mr. HART. I move to lay that tion in the burden of Government reg.
metion on the table.
ulation. We have made and continue dence and the nuclere reactor site.
The motion to lay on the table was to make great strides in an of these The resident inspectors commuting agreed to.
costa present a unique problem con-areas. The Economic Recovery Tax verse to those of othe,r Federal em-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I sug. Act of 1981, reductions in the growth ployees because of several factors: gest the absence of a quorum.
rate of Federal spending, and more The PRESIDING OFFICER. How sites; second, the frequent unavailabH-First. the remoteness of many nuclear does the Senator wi ity of public transporta:!on; and third. this quorum call to be charged?
set by the Federal Reserre Board al!
Mr. HART. Mr. President. I ask are steps toward the goals mandated one of the restrictions placed on the nennimous consent that the time for by the American people, inspector, which prohibit carpooling the quorum ' call not be charged Today we continue our progress with with Ilcensee employees or using 11-against either side.
consideration of the Regulatory censee. subsidized transportation.
It is to these two aress of concern-out objection. It is so ordered,The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-Reform lation is not intended to be a compre.
relocation costs and commuting The clerk will call the roll.
hensive reform of the entire regula-costs-that the amend =ent is directed.
The bD1 clerk proceeded to call the tory process. It focuses in depth on The amendment,if adepted, would au-
- roll, thorize the Commission to first, reim.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask the procedures for rulemaking and for burse resident inspecto s for mortgage unanimous consent that the orCr for judicial review of agency actions. The loan origination fees. crner's title in-the qu'orum call be rescinded.
provisions of S.1080 are a positive step In alleviating one of the greatest con.
surance, and Bridge" loan expenses The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ce.rns of American citizens in all walks incurred in relocating between duty Cocune). Without objection. It is so of life-unnecessary and costly G stations; second. contract with a "relo-ordered.
~
ernment regulations. Too cften these cating service" to assist resident in-Mr. SIMPSON. At this point. Mr. regulations have been propounded spectors in relocating between duty President, I ask unanimous consent without appropriate consul:ation with stations; and third. provide resident in-that an amendment by the Senator those affected and without respo spectors with government transporta-from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hzmt) be in analysis by the agencies involved. T tion for commuting purposes between order to be offered when the Senate regulatory analysis procedcres of the I,
1 eD
~
jyig.>
Pd S 2476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Marrh 22,1982 as no longer deployGble, Ct a large MX ons supposed to solve-Le. land based The legislative clerk proceeded to waste of Federal dollars.
missile vulnerability.
call the roll.
ifled Finally, expenditure of R. & D. and [ NIIg$^I'd,has te Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I ask
,g unanimous consent that the order for procurement funds for any work con-what cost, it would transfer MX missiles nected with the ineffective interim from the interim basing modes to a perma. the quorum call be rescinded.
basing mode dilutes and delays efforts nent deployment scheme. ' Itis ' raises the The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-to develop a survivable permanent prospect that 40% of our most modernized out objection, it is so ordered.
basing system.
ICBM capability would remain vulnerable.
For these reasons, Mr. President. I and in a militarily-interior and neutralized believe it is militarily and fiscally pru-p sition. even after MX deployment in a CONCLUSION OF MORNING dent that any funding included in the ""$DI'E
, the in'terim basing mode
,n MX budget request in f!Ral year 1983 makes no sense.
The PRESIDING iOFFICER. Is for work connected to the interim second. Itseally. the interim basing mode there further morning business? If basing mode, and for the proposed makes no sense because its cost to the tax. not, morning business is closed.
procurement of nine missiles, be re-payers for each surviving hiX is about $1.3-jected by the Armed Services Commit. s1.45 bluton. This is immensely greater than tee and the Senate. I shall work with the cost per surviving submarine-launched REGULATORY REFORM bantsuc missile and per surviving bomber, our colleagues toward this goal.
In the other two legs of our strategic deter.
The PRESIDING-OFFICER. The I am mindful that those who might rent TRIAD.
Senate will now resume consideration oppose my position would argue that Third, from an arms control perspective, of S.1080, which will be stated by the interim basing mode is needed to MX in the interim basing snode makes no title demonstrate to the Soviets that the sense because it dangerous!) erduces erists The legislative clerk read as follows-United States is serious about modern. stability" and the threshold ta nuclear war.
Izing its land-based missile force, and It actually invites a preemptory strike by A bill (S.1080) to amend the Administra-the Soviets, who might well feel tempted to tive Procedure Act to require Federal agen-that without interim MX deployment
- eliminate our most threatening missues cies to analyze the effects of rules to im-our strategic position will worsen.
before we could use them and it forces us to prove their etfectiveness and to decrease I believe strongly, however, that de-rely more heavily on a risky " launch'on their compliance costs; to provide for a peri-ployment of MX missiles in a basing warning" poney, so as to "use, not lose" odic review of regulations, and for other mode which will not work would only theae MX.
purposes.
demonstrate a weak defense policy Forth, the Air Force has acknowledged and a wastefulinvestment strategy.
that it is considering. other. smaller missiles f r deployment in the permanent, surviva-NUCLEAR REGUT.ATORY Mr. President, I have articulated c$ang ift t e e ItX on ig ung
- COMMISSION AUTIIORIZATIONS these views in a letter I have sent n
today, to the chairman of our commit-designed for the now rejected multiple pro-TIME 1.1MITArroN AcaEEMENT tee's strategic subcommittee (Mr. tective structure (MPS) basing. will be Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I now WARNgR). I have urged him to support needed for permanent basing. Thus, any ask unanimous consent that the action in the strategic subcommittee MX missues procured before the final Senate proceed to the consideration of to ad these concerns, basing mod ect c Qa Calendar No.141, S.1207, authoriza-gd t eo or ul to share this letter with my ed outright as no longer deployable, at a tion of appropriations for the Nuclear colleagues, and ask unanimous consent large waste of federal donars..
Regulatory Commission, under the that it be printed in the Rgcono at this Ftith, expenditure of R&D and procure. following time agreement; point.
ment funds for any work connected with One hour on the bill, to be equally There being no objection, the letter the ineffective, interim basing mode, duutes divided between the Senator from Wy.
was ordered to be printed in the and delays efforts to develop a survivable, oming (Mr. StursoN) and the Senator R, as kh from Colorado (Mr. HART) of their de5 U Crn4Tz.
F th aso believe it would be CowMIrrra oN Amuzn StavIcts, miutarily and fiscany prudent for the Stra. ignees.
Washington. D.C 3farch 22. JH2 tegic Subcommittee to restructure the MX Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest.
Hon. JonN W. WAaNER, program. This Can best be accomplished by dent, has the bill been called up?
Chairman. Sfmtcyic forces Subcommittee, eliminating any missile and basing mode Mr. STNNS. It has not been.
Russell Senate Office ButIding, Wash. R&D funding connected with the interim I
ington, D.C.
basing mode and pacing R&D to support a Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD Has the J
DEAR JOHN
- In the past three years, we all 1989 IOC for the permanent mode; by re. clerk stated ihe titie?
have observed with growing frustration the jecting the proposed procurement of nine Mr. STEVENS. We have before the nation's struggle to develop a statisfactory MX missues in FY 83; and by estab!!shing a Senate another measure as pending solution to the theoretical vulnerability of 1989 IOC for an entire militarily credible business, unless it is displaced by this our intercontinental balustle missile (ICBM) system. I urge you to support an amend. agreement. I say to the Senator from l
jb force. Sadly. I must conclude that we are no ment in the Strategic subcommittee to ac.
os to that problem today than comp h se obj ves.
g oppose our position would argue that the in. the distinguished Senator asked that The latest proposal'for procuring and basing the MX missue, embobled in the terim basing mode ls needed to demonstrate the Senate proceed to the considera.
to the Soviet Union that the United States tion of another bill.
Fiscal 1983 defense budget request, repre.
sents a backward step. I believe its enact. is seri us about modernizing its land-based Mr. STEVENS. No; I said. "under missue i ree. and that witNut interim MX ment actuany will make us weaker militarily the following time agreement." which d'$n I belle e stron)'t. how I have not yet read. If we do not l
and far less able financiauy to fund needed
,o e r.
at
"**D"I'***'
ployment of MX mi_n!es. which could be obtain that time agreement, it is my u$oI changed or discarded. in a basing mode ~ understanding that we will remain on cure n X
u for a u st 5 and to devote much of the $2.76 billion in which will not work. would only demon. the other bill.
I strate a weak defense policy and a sasteful Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the requested research and development funds investment strategy.
Senator.
b for work related to their interim basing, has D*$5[ *&ance f r y ur c nshation.
f several serious and fundamental flaws:
Mr. STEVENS. I will resume. I indi-3 y
First, there has been ample expert testi.
CARL LEVIN cated that there would be 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.
U.S. Senator, equally divided between the managers I
mony during the past five months that the Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I yield of the bill.
I interim basing mode is a military failure be.
o ur la d b d in es oo e o f the floor. I suggest the absence of a One hour on an amendment by Sen-E d
our newest, proposed strategic nuclear asset, quorum.
alors HART. SIStPSON, and MITengu to
(
}
.the MX missiles. in existing. non-surviving The PRESIDINO OFFICER. The prohibit the use of commercial spent silos just recats our present problem which clerk will call the roll.
fuel for nuc! car explosive purposes.
m L
E y,
, March SJ,1983 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2477 I
Thirty minutes on an amendment by Monday. Much 29. and th:t no call The bill will be rtsted by title.
Sen:tirs Fons. Sturson, and HART on for the regula crder would take S.
The assistant legislative c!crk read nuclear powerplant quality assurance.. 1207 down. That was part of my origi. as follows-Thirty minutes on a technical nal request.
amendment by Senators Hastr and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The A bul (S.1207) to authorize appropri-SIxPson.
Senator is correct.
ations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis.
ston in accordance with section 261 of the Thirty minutes on an amendment by The minority leader is recognized.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended, and Senators DouzxtcI and Stursos on Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest. section 305 of the Energy Reorganization urantum mill tailings regulation, dent. reserving the right to object.
Act of 1974, as amended and for other pur.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by Mr. STnT.NS. Mr. President. I say P 8-Senator SIurson to require the devel. again to the distinguished minority The Senate proceeded to the consid.
opment of a safety goal.
leader there is no intention to have cration of the bill.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by rollcall votes ort Otese amendments Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it Senators Sturson and HART on resi. today if they are oidered. Tne precise wourd be the readerships intention to dent inspectors.
time at which.those rollcall votes notify and we hope that the cloak.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by would take place that may be ordered rooms on both sides will notify the Senator McCnTas on the analysis of today has not yet been determined membership that we are now on S.
LOFT test results.
with the managers of the bill. and we 1207. There is a series of amendments Thirty minutes on an amendment by are unable to state with specificity as that will be argued before the Senate Senator HART on safeguards informa. to the exact time when we would like today. We do not anticipate rollcall tjon.
to hold any rollcall votes which would votes on those amendments today but Thirty minutes on an amendment by be ordered today on amendments that once they are disposed of and the time Senator AsIn(om on uranium mill tail. are listed in this agreement.
is yielded back they will be voted on at ings at Edgemont. S. Dak.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi. a later time without debate.
Thirty minutes on an amendment by dent. I have no objection..
It Senator HEINz regarding Three Mile The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-is encumbent upon those who Island waste storage, out objection. It is so ordered.
wish to be heard and involved to keep One hour on an amendment by Sen.
The text of the agreement follows' Up uith the development of the con.
ator McCLeas on powerplants licens-sideration of the Nuclear Regulatory onferecf. That when the Senate resumes Ccmmission bill today.
ing.
consideration of S.12o7, a bal to authorize Thirty minutes on all other amend. appropriations to the Nuclear Regulatory It Is our hope that with the excep-ments in the first degree.
Commission in aardance witti sectiori 261 tion of those two amendments this bill Twenty minutes on all amendments [{A ry Nt oQp,5 ception of the time on the bi!! Itself.
will be disposed of todry with the e:c-o e
s amen In the second degree.
zauon Act of 1974, as amended, and for The amendments !!sted in the agree.
f,
g g
Ten minutes on any debatable motion. appeals, or points of order, if other purposes, the followins amend:nents ment Just agreed to with the coopera.
submitted to the Senate.
be the only amendments in order: (t) an tion of my good friend, the distin-amendment to be offered by the Senator Also, that the agreement be in the from Colorado (Mr. HanT) for himself and gulshed minority leader, are most.
usual form. with the following proviso; the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Sturson) most controversial amendments and That the Senate dispose of all amend. and the Senator from Maine (Mr. Mnen* very technical.
s ments to S.1207 with the exception of nu. to prohibit the use of commercial We are hopeful that Senators will the Hart
- SimDson. and Mitchell spent fuel for melear uploske purposes. to heed m e2 and em M h Um U amendment to prohibit the use of be limited to 1 heur, to be equally divided they intend to be involved in the commercial spent fuel for nuclear ex. and controned by the Sc.iator from Colora. debate on the Nuclear Regulatory plesive purposes, limited to I hour. do (Mr. HAaT) and the manager of the bCL Comml&Slon Authorization Act of (2) an amendment to be offered by the Sen-1982 and the, Domenici and Simpson amendment on uranium mIII tallings stor from New Mexico (Mr. Dounten. for himself and the Senator from Wyoming Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi.
regulation. I!mited to 30 minutes (Mr.Srwrson). relauve to uranium min tau. dent, I share the views that have just during today's session, ings regulauon. to be !!mited to 30 minutes, been expressed by the distinguished Provided, further that the Senate to be equally divided and contro!Ied by the acting Republican leader.
~
not resume consideration of S.1207 Senat r fr m New Mexico (Mr. D uurci)
Will he put in a quorum call and not Drior to Monday. March 29.
and the manager of the bul; and (3) an charge it against anyone on the bill Provided, further, that no ca!! for amendment to be offered by the Senator the regular order will displace S.1207. from Pennsylvania (Mr. Huwz) to be !!mit* until some of the participants can arrive Mr. President, that is the proposed ed to 30 minutes. to be equally divided and time agreement. If it fs agreed to. It is controned by the Senator from Pennsylva.
Mr STEVENS. Yes; I think that is nla (Mr. Hunz) and the manager of the bill: DIOD*T*
my understanding that if any rolicall Proefded. That the agreement on the Heinz Mr. President, until the arrival of votes are ordered today, they will be amendmmt be subject to the approval of the managers of the bill, at which dealt with by agreement, after consul. the trJmority leader and may be vittatgd by time we will take the quorum call off, tation with the minority leader, with the min rity leader pri r t the ci se f I ask unanimcus consent that there be the Intent that they will be put over
,7,[furtA$r until another time. The precise time d bate on the bal would have to be determined late-shan be limited to I bour. to be equa!!r df. charged on the agreement just entered vided and controued by the Senator from into.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest. Wyoming (Mr. Stursom) and the Senator The PRESIDING OFFICER tMr.
dent, reserving the right to object-from colorado (Mr. Han), or their desfr-ANDREWS). Without objection, it is so Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I add nees.
- ordered, to that an omission, and I apo!!g:m to ordered further. That debate on any de.
D Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I sug.
the minority leader, because it wa : eft submt t$e ate sh !
I n ted t out of my version.
Provided, further, that the Seate 10 minutes, to be equa!!y dktded and con.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The troHed in the usual form: Prortded. That no clerk will call the roll, resume consideration of S.1207 follow-call for the regular crder shan ser e to dis.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the ing disposition of S.1080, the regula. place s.12o7.
roll.
tory reform bill. and that the only MARCH 22.1982.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I ask amendments to be in order to S.1207 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President is it unanimous consent that the order for are the amendments identified in this correct that S.1207 is now the pending the quorum call be rescinded.
agreement above, business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
I did state that we would not resume The PRESIDING OFFICER. The out objection. It is so ordered. The consideration of S.
1207 prior to Senator is correct.
Senator from 'Vyoming.
t 1
A
Marrh51SSJ S2HS CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
, Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am censing review process will not stand system for all operating nuclear pleased to present for the considera-as a barrier in the critical path toward powerplants.
Upon submitting its report, the NRC tion of the Senate S.1207, a bill operation of such a facility.
authorizing funds for the Nuclear Second. the bill earmarks a total of may then proceed with a complete Regulatory Commission for fiscal $10 million in fiscal years 1982-83 for system-a long-needed item in nuclear years 1982 and 1983.
the purposes of accelerating the agen-regulation.
As reported from the Committee on cy's research activities in the area of Mr. President, there have been a high temperature, gas-cooled reactors. number of developments since the Environment and Public Works on May 8 this bill authorizes appropri. Based upon testimony which was pre-committee reported the bill many ations in the amount of $495.7 million sented to the committee. Mr. Presl* months ago. Among those is the con-for fiscal year 1982, and $530 million dent, it appears that high-tempera-tinuing growing need for reductions in for ibcal year 1983.
ture, gas-cooled reactors may have sig-the Federal budget. The Commission I wish to note that this is the first nificant advantages over the current should bear a share of that burden, year the committee has recommended generation of light-water reactors. in-and for this reason I intend to offer an a multiyear authorization for the cluding greater safety margins, and re-amendment that would reduce the NRC, and, based upon the detailed 2-duced siting risks.
level of authorizations in the bill for year budget proposal submitted by the Accordingly, the committee recom* ibcal year 1982 by an additional $10 agency,it is the hope that this 2-year mended that $10 million be set aside million.
authorization will greatly enhance the for the purpose of enabling the agen-In addition, the amendment will pro-agency s ability to plan for the future. cy's regulatory program in that area vide adjustments in the allocation of As for the particulars of the bill: to keep pace with industry and Gov-funding among the major program e committee has recommended an ernment programs for the develop-categories in the agency's budget and honzation of $495.7 million for ment of a large-scale, high tempera-for cert M specified activities in the year 1982-a reduction of 1 per-ture, gas-cooled reactor.
bill. I b, uve these changes are more cent in the agency's 1982 budget re-Third the bill earmarks a total of in line witn the Commission's spend-quest.That amount, which represents $91 million to be used by the agency in ing plans and priorities, given our a realincrease in fiscal year 1982 dol-fiscal years 1982-83 for the loss of 8 ary lars of $6.6 million, is to be divided fluid test facility research program, a DQsen e9nta hre amend-among the four major program ofHces program which focuses on the conse-ments to the Atomic Energy Act set within the agency in the following quences of loss of<oolant accidents in forth in title II. The first of those manner: 375.6 million to " Nuclear re-certain types of commercial reactors.
amendments, authorizing the NRC to actor regulation," $67.4 million to "In-The committee concluded, based grant interim operating licenses, ad-spection and enforcement," $46.3 mil-upon testimony presented by the dresses the problem of a backlog in 11-lion to " Nuclear material safety and agency, that this program should be censing new nuclear poxerplants. For safeguards," and $245.7 million to "Re-continued through 1983 for the pur, the very first time it appears that the search." with the balance allocated for pose of completing the testing pro, agency's hearing process for a number
" Program technical support" and gram described in the LOFT special of nuclear powerplants has the poten-
" Program direction and administra-review group report, and valuable tial for extending beyond the date tion."
safety information can be obtained in when the plants will be ready to oper.
For fiscal year 1983, the committee this 2-year period as a result of such ate.
has recommended an authorization of tests. Accordingly, the committee set This backlog, which can be traced to
$530 million-an amount equivalent to aside $91 million for that purpose.
NRC's diversion of resources from 11-the NRC's 1983 budget request. Simi-Fourth, and very importantly, the censing activities to other safety con-larly, this amount is to be divided bill earmarks $11.3 million in fiscal cerns following the Three Mlle Island among the 4 major program offices in years 1982-83 for the purpose of devel. accident, has the potential, if not ad-the following manner: 878.3 million to oping a nuclear data link system. dressed, to impose w hat the ecmmittee nuclear reactor regulation, 870.3 mil-Briefly, that system is designed to col. views as unacceptable financial costs lion to inspection and enforcement, lect data at individual operating reac. upon utilities and their ratepayers,
$48 million to nuclear material safety tors, transmit the data to NRC's head, Mr. President, there has been con-and safeguards, and $270 million to re-quarters, and display the data in a uni. siderable study of these projected 11-search, with the balance going to pro-form manner in order to enable the censing delays for new nuclear power-gram technical support and program NRC to monitor the plant and inde.
direction and administration.
pendently assess plant conditions plants. When NRC proketed licensing delays in January 1981, the agency an-In addition to the general funding during an accident.
ticipated that 12 plants would be de-level set forth in this bill, the commit-Several investigations of the Three layed a total of 90 months. A number tee has further recommended that cer-Mile Island accident pointed out the of factors have changed those early tain funds be earmarked for expendi-lack of timely and accurate informa-projections of delay rather dramatical-
}
.ture by the agency in four specific tion available to NRC's headquarters ly. First, I think it is very fair to say areas: Fhst, the bill sets aside $27 mil-personnel and, in particular, the seri-that some of the utility projections of j
lion for fast-breeder reactor safety re-ous shortcomings of an emergency I
search and licensing review work to be communication system that relies plant construction completion were conducted in each fiscal year. These upon people to determine and commu-overly optimistic. Lengthening con-struction periods hav e, therefore, funds are to be used by the agency for nicate critical technical plant data, eliminated a portion of the expected the purpose of establishing a regula-The committee has long supported tory framework for the licensing of efforts to improve NRC's ability to delays.
fast-breeder reactors.
communicate with the licensee during Second, the Commission has done Of the $27 million specifically set an emergency, and has, accordingly, much to accelerate its licensing pro-aside by the committee, $20.4 million earmarked $11.3 million for the nucle-gram, both by directing additional has been earmarked for use by the ar data link proposal. The bill specifi-effort to licensing reviews and by Office of Research to expand its cally provides, however, that the Com-adopting a number of administrathe review of the safety aspects of fast-mission shall not have raore than $1 reforms to eliminate unnecessary breeder technology. It is the intent of million in fiscal years 1932-83 until delays in staff reviews and licensing the committee that the NRC have the the Commission has estab!!ahed a pro-hearings. I believe the Commission has caDability to license any breeder reac-totype data link system, and, upon as-been most responsive here, while pre-tor intended to demonstrate the com-se". sing the results of the prototype, serving its paramount responsibnity to mercial workability of breeder tech-has submitted a report to Congress protect the public health and safety.
nolog). The funds set aside for this containing a Commission recommen-Third, several planta in the interim l>urposc would insure the NRC's 11-dation on implementing a specific have now received their full operating l:
t 4
Il y
g n
- b. March 22,1982 CbNGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2479 licenses, thereby eliminating any fur-cense after the
- filing of the Advisory public hearing, where it determines i
I 6. ther delay potential in those cases. As' Committee on Reactor Safeguards that such amendments pose "no sw-a result, Mr. President, the Commis-report, the NRC staff safety report, nificant hazards consideration." A1 sion's latest report to the Congress on the NRC staff environmental state-though the NRC has, for Sears, inter-potential reactor licensing delays an-ment, and a State, local, or utility preted the Atomic Energy Act to au-
]
ticipates that only one plant will expe-emergency preparedness plan. The thorize the issuance of such amend-rience any delay, and that delay is ex-NRC is required to provide notice of ments without holding a prior hearing, 3
pected to be limited to 2 months.
the petition and a 30<!ay period for
- s. recent D.C. court of appeals decision, Mr. President, the result of this public comment. This is a very critical the Sholly decision struck down the j
latest report from the Commission are and important part of the procedure. agency's interpretation of the act.
most personally gratifying to me. Upon expiration of the 30. day com.
By including this amendmer,t, the Some may, therefore, suggest-if I ment period, the NRC may issue the committee seeks to add 2ess the con-might anticipate a bit-that we might interim operating license if it deter-cern expressed by the Conunission in
=
no longer need that authority in the mines that: first, all requirements of its recent testimony that a require-g bill to issue interim operating licenses. law other than the conduct or comple-ment that the NRC grant a requested I do not believe that is so. I do not be-tion of any required hearing are met; hearing prict to making effective a fa-3 lieve that is the case for several rea-second, there is reasonable assurance cihty license amendment involving "no 4
sons..
that interim operation of the facility significant hazards consideration,"
First, the present Commission pro-in accordance with the terms of the !!- could result in unnecessary disruption
~
jections of very limited delays assumes cense will provide adequate protection or delay in the operation of a nuclear a very ambitious licensing schedule by to the public health and safety and powerplant and could impose unnec-the Commfuion for the next 2 years. the environment, which is the sole essa.ry regulatory burdens upon the If the Commission meets its present mission of the Nuclear Regulatory projections, it will license in each of Commission; and third, denial of the NRC that Are not related to signifi-cant safety benefits.
the next 2 years more than twice the interim license will result in delay be-It is for these reasons that the com-number of new reactor operating 11-tween the time when the facilley is mittee recommends that the Atomic eenses than have ever been issued,oy sufficiently completed to permit inter
- g-NRC in a single year. Mr. President I im operation and the time when a Energy Act be amended to authorize believe it is wise and appropriate to final operating Ilcense would other-.the NRC to issue license amendments
=
have the interim operating authority wise be issued.
. posing no significant hazards consid-a available as a backup over the next 2 The amendment further provides eration" without first holding a pub!!c 1
years in the event the Commission's that an applicant's initial petition for hearing' 1
projected schedule proves to be overly interim operating license authority It should be noted tMt, in deciding i
optimistic.
shall be limited to 5 percent power. wheth,er a particular amendment Second, the interim operating au-Upon approval by the NRC of the ap. D08#8 *no significant hazards cons! der-thority provides a useful safeguard to plicant's petition for interim operation e]Tt coQt j
avoid pressures that might otherwise at 5 percent power, the applicant may th the t in exist to accelerate the licensing proc-then petition for interim operation at which the particular facility is located.
ess for these plants at the expense of increased power levels. Separate peti-The committee fully expects that con-safety. Should problems arise in a tions from the utility, notice and sultation with the State will be the given case that require further study. public comment periods, and determi-rule, rather than the exception, but in i
the availability of the interim licens ' nations by the NRC are required, how-those Instances where prior consulta-q i
ing authority should remove any inor-ever, before the Commission can allow tion is virtually impossible and the I
dinate pressures to hurry the review of operation at each succeeding power plant is threatened with shutdown
[
those issues in the hearing process as levet unless the amendment is granted, the i
soon as;possible to avoid a licensing
-The amendment also includes a NRC has further options under this i
delay. The availability of this authori-number of procedural safeguards to amenhnt.
I ty should help assure that the Com-insure that the issuance of the interim In ad.tition, it should be noted that
=
4 mission will give all these applications operating license does not prejudge the auWority granted the NRC under g
a thorough review without imposing the outcome of the licensing hearing this amendment will not take effect unnecessary economic costs on the for the final operating license or prej-until the Commission has promulgated ratepayers. I believe this concept of udice the rights of any party to the regulations establishing standards for using this authority as a safeguard in hearing to raise any issue in the hear-determir.ing whether an amendment those few cases where it may be ing and to have that issue decided. In to a licer_se involves no significant haz-4 needed is entirely consistent with the addition, the amendment requires that ards comideration.
committee's intent. In fact, the provi-any party to the hearing or any Lt.
Finally, the NRC is required, under sion itself directs the Commission to censing Board member conducting the title III of this bill, to promulgate reg.
f take all appropriate administrative hearing promptly notify the Commis, ulations establishing criteria for pro-steps to minimize the need *for issuing sion of any information indicating viding or dispensing with prior notice interim operating licenses under this that the terms and conditions of the and public comment on "no significant authority.
interim operating license are not being hazards consideration" determina-1 Mr. President, for the foregoing rea-met.
tions, and procedures for consultation sons, the committee has recommended Moreover, the amendment provides on such determinations with the State i
that the Atomic Energy Act be amend-that, if the applicant is not prosecut. In which the facility is located. -
J ed to permit the NRC through 1983 t'o ing its application for the final operat.
The third and final amendment to 4-'
issue interim operating licenses, prior ing license with due diligence, the in. the Atomic Energy Act contained in to the completion of any required terim operating license shall be sus-this bill deals with the sabotage of nu-9 hearing.
pended.
clear fadlities. Section 236 of the
/
The amendment set forth in this bill Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the Atomic Energy Act now provides that establishes, however, a very detailed Commission is directed under the any person who intentionally and will-4 procedural framework for granting amendment to adopt those administra. fully destroys or causes physical such licenses that is patterned after a tive remedies deemed necessary to damage to, or attempts to destroy or similar provision in the Atomic Energy minimize the need for issuance of in. cause physical damage to, a nuclear fa-Act that authorized the Commission terim operating licenses.
cility shall be fined up to $10,000, im-to issue such licenses up until October The second amendment recommend-prisoned for not more than 10 years, 30,1973. Briefly, the amendment pro-ed by the committee in this bill au-or both.
Vides that an applicant may petition thorizes the NRC to issue amendments That provlsion does not cover the the NRC for an interim operating 11-to licenses without first holding a situation in which a person intention-i W'
S 24S0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March !!!,198J ally and willfully interrupts a power-The provision contains several im. of the nuclear industry painted a grim plant's operation by merely tampering portant restrictions on the NRC's au-picture of increases in licensing delays with or improperly using, rather than thority to issue interim operating 11-as time went on, imposing additional physically damaging or destroying, the censes. First, the initial interim oper-costs of several billion dollars on util-machinery, components, or controls of ating license must be limited to power ity ratepayers.
the plant. Because such acts could -levels no greater than 5 percent of That presentation was 10 months
=
result in substantial replacement full rated thermal power. Second, if a ago. IIowever, the most recent NRC power costs to a utility and its custom. utility seeks an interim Ifcense to oper-report on license delays, issued 2 ers, and may endanger the public ate the reactor at power levels greater weeks ago, shows a dramatic decrease health and safety, the committee rec-than 5 percent,it must formally peti-in !! cense delays to only 2 months.
ommends amendment of the Atomic tion the Commission to amend the in-Several factors undoubtedly have 3'
Energy Act to include this situation.
terim operating license to allow the contributed to the reduction in ikens-This provision is essentially the operation of the powerplant in staged ing delays. The NRC has implemented same as an amendment to the 1981 increases at specific power levels sci administrative changes in its regula-NRC authorization bill accepted by by the NRC.
tory processes. In addition, the nuclear the Senate, but not enacted as law.
Third, the NRC may issue an inter-industry in several cases was too That, briefly, is a summary of the im operr. ting license at 5 percent overly. optimistic in estimating the measure proposed to the Senate. It power, or an amendment to the license dates for completion of construction 4
has been considered now for the many for operation at greater power levels-on several nuclear powerplants. For weeks that it has been before the but only if it finds three things: First, example last spring Diablo Canyon J
tody. There are two amendments that in all respects other than the con-had an estimated license delay of 12 I
under the time agreement that will duct or completion of any required months. Subsequent eventa revealed come up later.
hearing, the requirements of law are serious deficiencies in construction of I
At this moment I want to signify met. Second, that there is reasonable the Diablo Canyon plant which m
how much I appreciate the work of my assurance that operation of the power-pushed farther into the future the colleague, the ranking minority plant during the interim period will date for completion of construction v
member of this subcommittee, Senator provide adequate protection to public and removed Diablo Canyon from the GARY HART, my neighbor from Colora. health and safety and the erwiron-licensing delay category altogether.
do. He has been extraordinarily sup. ment. Third, that denial of the interim Mr President
- the fact nevertheless portive and helpful, as have his staff, operating license will result in a delay i
ii
[ndust y c led and the full comnittee. The steady between the date or which construc-If ith i es im te counsel of Senator STAFFoRD should tion of the powerplant is completed, in of licensing delays and demanded also be recognized, the chairman of the NRC's judgment, and the date the
- I the full committee, and the ranking final operating license would other- [t e er e isted, app nt y does member of the full committee the wise issue.
Senator from West Virginia (JEErscs In my view, this last requirement exist now. Fortunately, the Environ-ment and Public Works Committee RANDo!.PH).
does not authorize the NRC to issue The entire staff, the majority and an interim license when the utility, by carefully deliberated on what type of 3
minority staffs, has been more than falling to make a reasonable effort to legislative relief it would grant the nu-helpful, as I say, in the drafting, in the meet the requirements of the licensing clear Industry. It developed a reason-presentation, and in the amending process in a timely manner, substan-able provision that did not overreact
- process, tially delays completion of that proc-to the nuclear industry's extreme f
Mr. President, at this time I yield to ess. In other words, a utility should claims. Indeed, because a utility must l#*l* the n d fo inte my colleague from Colorado. Senator not be able to obtain an interim oper-gk HART.
Eting license Dy unreasonably delaying al elimination of l'icensing delays. It is The PRESIDING OFFICER. The its application for a final operation 11-very conceivable that the authority in Senator from Colorado is recognized.
- cense, Mr. HART. Mr. President, I join The final restriction in this provi-this provision will never be invoked.
with the distinguished Senator from sion is the automatic termination, on The experience with this provision Wyoming, the chairman of the Senate December 31, 1983, of the NRC's au. should serve as a lesson for future de-Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, thority to grant interim operating 11 cisions by the Congress on reform of in urging the Senate to pass the NRC censes.
the NRC's regulatory processes. While Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 I recognize and strongly support the we should willingly consider reason-3 and 1983, as reported by the Environ-need for the public to have a meaning. able proposcis for regulatory reform, ment and Public Works Committee. ful opportunity to participate in NRC we should also avoid knee-jerk re-Needless to say, this bill repre.sents decisions on licensing nuclear power. sponses to cries of " wolf" similar to many hours of negotiations among the plants for operation. Because of this, I the one we heard from the nuclear in-members and staff of the committee hase been extremely reluctant to dustry last spring.
y i
to produce a bill the members could accept legislative changes in the Mr. President. I again urge the accept unanimously.
NRC's regulatory regime that could Senate to pass this bill.
I think that is the important consid-short circuit mechanisms for pub!!c I return the perhaps excessive com.
eration as the full Senate undertakes participation. Because, however, this p11ments to the Senator from Wyo-
=5 to review this measure.
provision carefully circumscribes ming as to whatever ef forts I have put Thc Senator from Wyoming has NRC's authority to grant an interim into presenting this legislation on the very skillfully, fairly, and accurately oprating license to a utility prior to floor of the Senate. The credit for
, j, described the provisions in the report-completion of a public hearing, I am what I think is a responsible and rea-
)
ed bill.
willing to accept it.
sonable piece of legislation lies entire-I will not repeat that effort. I would, Other committee members and I ly uth the Senator from Wyoming as however, like to discuss a provision in were persuaded the NP.C neckd Ilmit. the chairman of the subcommittee. He l
the bill that is of particular concern to ed authority to grant interim operat-.skdtfully guided this measure through
=
9 me-the provision authorizing the ing licenses to eliminate an estimated a very observant full committee of the NRC to grant interim operating 11-79 months of licensing delay covering Emironment and Public Worka Com-A i
censes for new nuclear powerp! ants. some 12 or 13 separate nuclear power-mittee, and the able staff which haa
,j The interim license authorized by this plants. This is the difference between assisted him so well not only this year provision would allow a utility to oper-the time when construction on a plant but in the past.
ate its powerplant prior to the conduct would be completed and the date on Once again I add my words of or completion of an NRC hearing on which the NRC would issue a final op-thanks to him and word.5 of congratu-granting a final operating license.
erating license. Indeed, representatives lation.s for his continuing fine of fort j
4
_m
- 4. air CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2481 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I the NRC predicted that, according to them are financial problems and thank the Senator from Colorado. I estimated construction completion changing financial considerations, would certainly indicate that it was dates provided by the utilities, 12 labor difficulties, and engineering during his leadership as chairman, powerplants would face 90 cumulative complications. These are reasons while I was ranking minority ruember, months of delay during 1981 and 1982 which are in the hands of the utility that I did learn about the observancy due to the NRC licensing process. Al-ovmers, and are not attributable to the capabilities of our colleagues on not though, as the NRC staff pointed out NRC.
only the subcommittee but the full at the time, utility estimates on con-It is important to note, too, that cur.
committee, struction completion dates have been rent efforts to " stream!!ne" the NRC Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-historically very optimistic, these fig-process, like interim licenses and other sent that the following staff members ures were accepted as reliable at the be given floor privileges during debate time. Numerous sources stated that similar proposals, come at the expense of safety regulations. Such measures on S.
1207: Jim Asselstine, Keith plants which stood idle also resulted in may ultimately harm, rather than Glaser, Erich Bretthauer, Jim Curtiss, a cost to the Nation of upward of $3 help, the nuclear industry. Recent Heather Lancaster, Jim Davenport, billion in higher utility rates.
and Barbara Magnuson.
Much has changed since the pubilca-polls show that an increasing number of Americans are concerned about the
. I also ask unanimous consent that tion of the NRC's January 1981 health and safety implications of nu.
the following members of the Energy report. The latest NRC report on Committee staff be granted the privi-delays in the licensing schedule for all clear power, and it is imperative that leges of the floor during consideration pending operating license applications we in CongrMs be responsive to these of S.1207:
shows a total of 2 months of delay. It concerns. Present construction prob-Chuck Trabandt and Paul Gilman.
is fair to say that the total number of lems at the Diablo Canyon plant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-90 cumulative months of delay has along with similarly serious engineer-out objection, it is so ordered.
ing complications at other plants been erased. Much has also changed Im: arm oPEaAfrMG WCUSING Provisions since allegations were first made re' across the country, make a strong ar.
Mr. MITCHEIL Mr. President, I garding the cost of plants which sit gument for strenghtening the NRC 11-rise to voice my concerns with the in-idle. The Department of Energy began censing process. They also make a terim operating licensing provisions in-estimating the potential cost in April strong case, as NRC Chairman Nunzio cluded in this legislation. The NRC au-1981. Since that time the DOE figures Palladino noted, for nuclear utility thorization bill provides that interim have demonstrated two facts:
management "to reorient its think-operating licenses for nuclear power-First, the criginal cost estimates pro-Ing." As Chairman Palladino stated in plants may be granted prior to hear. vided by the industry were inherently a recent speech before the Atomic In-ings for NRC final operating licenses. Inflated by the cost of capital carrying dustrial Forum
- It is important to gain a perspective costs; second they were exaggerated on these provisions, and to see, pre-by the overstated number of months th r wn int esta dm e-cisely, what they were in response to. of delay and other cost assertions high standards expected for nuclear power.
The reasons originally given for the which the DOE regularly rejected.
Their deficiencies in quality usurance are inexcusable. There have been lapses of
' need for interim operating licenses are The figures which were the basis of many kinds-in design analyses, resulting in
_ manifold. But I believe the reason the interim license argument have built-in design errors: In poor construction which has been the most effective is been proven to be unrealistic in the practices; in falsified documenta; in harass.
the notion, put forth by administra-case of delay figures, and hypothetical ment of quality control personne!: and inad-tion and industry officials, of a dila-and overstated in the case of cost fig-t,e tra
, g, o a
tor s
ese tory NRC bottling up its own licensing ures. The interim license argument im-ep, e
process. For the past yer.r " delay" has plied that these figures exposed a per-reform is to take place...
become the most prominent catchword manent dilemma which demanded a Industry has the key role in the construe-in the debate over the NRC's licensing permanent solution. The rapid change plants. That is the fact. Not only public tion and safe operation of nuclest power -
process.
In the cost and delay figures dramati-health and safety considerations, but eco-Catchwords, like this one, are often cally weakens this argument. Presert nomic imperatives dictate the highest pro-ideas which becorne prominent be-figures clearly show that the delays fessional standards in bu!! ding and operat-cause they are assumed to contain a represented a temporary, curable pas, ing a nuclear plant. When construction or high level of truth. The more often sage in the NRC's licensing process.
operation falls below the highest standards, they are repeated, the more true they Nevertheless, it is a passage which "h* # I"d"'*'Y I* h"#**
become. Delays in the licensing proc. demands that a number of tough ques.
The Senate Environment Committee ess, as the primary or only obstacle tions be answered by the industry. In. made,a number of changes in the in-facing the construction of new plants, stead of blaming delays solely on the terim license provisions of the bill as it have been so widely referred to that NRC's licensing process, it is essential was originally introduced. These provi.
they are now widely assumed to be that the industry realize that reasons sions strenghten the bill itself, and true. It has been my concern through-for delays also exist elsewhere, primar. provide more reassurance to persons out this debate that the issue of delay 11y in two areas First, the delays like myself that interim licenses will has gained a certain currency and le. caused by the NRC's licensing process be granted only in the most severe in-gitimacy which is unwarranted. Since were mainly the result of a manpov,er stances. The Environment Committee the time this legislation was first re-reallocation within the agency de. bill requires that, prior to the issuance ported by the Senate Environment signed to meet the demands placed on of interim licenses, determinations be i
Committee, my concern about interim it by the Three Mile Island accident. made by the NRC that:
i licenses has been shown to be justi. The accident there holds a valuable First. All legal requirements, other fled.
perspective for utility representatives than those relating to hearings, are It has become evident that the level who believe NHC regulations alone met, of truth in the catchword " delay" cause delays which in turn cause the Second. There is reasonable assur.
makes it undeserving of the degree to ratepayer excessive costs; the cost of ance that interim operation of the fa.
which it is now assumed by the public. cleaning up the accident at TMI, esti, cility in accordance with the terms When this legislation was first intro-duced, interim license proponents who mated at between $1 to $1.3 billion, is and conditions of the license will ade, a cogent reminder of other potential quately protect the public health and supported the notion of massive delays costs to the ratepayer and makes a safety and the environment; and were clearly abetted by NRC data on case for more, not fewer, safety regula.
Third. Denial of the interim license the number of months of delay in the tions.
Will result in delay between the time licensing schedule, and the cost of Second, there are other, essentially the facility is sufficiently completed to those delays to the ratepayer. In its economic reasons for the slowdown in permit interim operation and the time January 1981 report to the Congress, powerplant licenses: primary among when a final operating license would
'_O...
March ff,1982
[
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SEN ATE h
S 2482 Agency, the Department of IIousing and cleanup of contaminated property on, f,
otherwise be issued before operation Urt an Development, the Department of sud in the vicinity of, abandoned ura-1 at each power level.
Energy, the Tennessee valley Authority, nium mal sites. However, since TVA r[ holds a source material license on the
' The bill also includes procedur-d s
d Ij inactive mill site. Edgemont is ex-e tab is and safeguards to assure that the issunnce be i of an interim license does not preju-nate a monitoring, usincering assessment cluded from compensation under the and remedial action program for the man.
dice the ' outcome of the license hear-act.
agement of byproduct material, as defined Let rne emphasize, Mr. President, ing for the plant's final operating 11-in section 11 e. (2) of tae Atomic Energy Act cense on the rights of any party to the of 1954, at offsite locations in the vicinity of that in 1980, both IIouses of Congress hearing. As well, the bill directs the the Edgemont. South Dakota, uranium mill adopted amendments to remedy the s
S h ess: off. site tailings problem at Edgemont.
NRC to adopt appropriate administra, Unfortunately, the amendments were tive remedies to minimize the need for noni oring an e e
the issuance of interim licenses.
ments at such locations and the establish. attached to different b(11s and the pro-I offered an amendment to the com-ment and performance of requirements for vision was not enacted.
the management, including remedial action.
In fiscal year 1981. Congress made
- ~
mittee bill which further strengthens of such byproduct material.
the interim licensing provisions. The (b> In carrying out the monitoring. ensi-available funds to enable DOE to bill, as introduced, allowed utilities to neering assessment and remedial action pro-begin off site remedial work. Lacking the statutory authority, DOE was operate at full power under an interim gram ablis ed b subsect
(
u license. My amendment provides for a unable to expend those funds.
step.by-step progression from initial for coordinating the monitoring. engineer-Mr. President, this situation has im-ing asses. ment and rernedial action program estabushed by subsection (a) and, in consul-posed severe hardships on the citizens fuel loading and low-power testing up To conclude Mr. President, I find it tation with the State of South Dakota, of Edgemont, Uranium mill tailings, to full-power levels.
which have been located in the foun-shall-M MmWhaW6W distressing that the debate over inter-(1) establish general objectives and prior.
on nuclear development, and supposed $3,,(y DhdQove a monitoring, engl. yards of dozens of homes in im licenses has focused almost entirely I
pose a serious health threat. In 1980 a
obstacles to that development, rather neering assessment and remedial action pro-due to the high radon levels detected than on nuclear safety. We do have an gram for the locations described in subsec-in the residential community, the En-h (3) assure that an approved monitoring. Vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) obligation to see that the process does tion (s):
L not become bogged down needlessly engineering assessment and remedial action prohibited the Department of Housing while trivial items are discussed. This and Urban Development (HUD) from is not just an NRC or industry con-Pj,Qg,",7g(,"Ato e Ene y A t of 154 engaging in Federal IIousing Authori-cern. It is a public concern.
as amended, and conforms to the standards ty (FIIA) loan transactions in Fdge-But we have another obligation that of general app!! cation for the protection of mont. The negative press the uranium the public health, safety and the environ-mill tailings issue has provoked has must always take precedence. We have an obligation to insure that nuclear ment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with residual radioactive had a significant economic impact on power does not endanger the public the community. IIaving been surveyed health and safety, and that those who materials located at inactive uranium mill F
u ga : and studied for some 10 years, area tai epos si o
may have legitimate questions and in, ggsgsites residents feel that appropriate remedi-
{
en t
o formation about health and safety tal Protection Agency pursuant to section al actlon is long past due.
hazards are afforded an opportunity 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as The Nuclear Regulatory Commission to participate in the licensing and 11' amended; and cense. amendment prccess. To meet (4) provide funding through contract for (NRC), in cooperation with TVA. the e
g 4
r an approved monitortng and engineering as-State of South Dakota and EPA, has this obligation, we must scrutinize sessment program at the locations described nearly completal the preparation nec-more carefully the cost and delay flg.
- ures provided to the Congress by the SectionI0'2(e) of the 17ratium Min essary to begh the actual remedial in bsec work. If enarted. this amendment will industry in the future. But we must Tainnes Radiation Control Act of 1978 (92 enab'e DOE to begin work on the re-also scrutinize more incisively the use Stat. 3025) is amended by adding a new medial project during the next con-paragraph (3) to read as follows-of catchwords which. If they do not
"(3) Notwithstanding the one-year limita-struction season
- contain a high level of truth, have the tion contained in this section. the Secretary Mr. President. I understand that i
ability to distort and mislead a nation. shall designate for remedial action any real this amendment has the support of
}
l property, or improvements thereon, in the distinguished subcommittee chair-al policy debate A
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I be. Edgemont, South Dakota that-man and ranking minority member, f
lieve that the Senator from South (A) is in the vicinity of the Tennessee Dakota has an amendment to propose. Valley Authority uranium mill site in Edge-Mr. SDf PsoN and Mr. HART.
I I do thank both of these gentlemen t
c aient. and 1
4 O
I yJeld to him for that purpose.
(B)is determined by the Commission to be for the cooperation and the help they cr anznum No. ass contaminated with residual radioactive ma, have given me on this particular prob-Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President, I ser:d terials dertved from that site.
ym.
g an amendment to the desk and ask for In making the designations under this para, e Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President. 1
)
(
its immediate consideration'CER. The graph. the Secretary shall consult with the wish to express my support for the e
The PRESIDING OFFI Administrator. the Commission and the T
arsendment will be stated.
State of South Dakota. The provisions of amendment, of which I am a cospon-I The assistant legislative clerk read Title I of this Act shall apply to the remedi-sor, offered by my colleague from al action at property designated under this South Dakota. I have been working on
(
as follows:
paragraph except that notwithstanding any the problem of procuring assistance in The Senator from South Dakota (Mr, other provision of this Act, the Secretary dealing with the mill tailings in Edge-ABDNoR). for himself and Mr. Parssua pro. shall pay the full cost of such remedial mont for some time now. It is gratify-t poses an unonnted amendment numbered action /*.
ing to see that we are coming close to
(
834.
Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President, on Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President, I ask behalf of myself, and Senator a resolution of this matter.
The radiation problan in the Edge-unanimous consent that further read-PREsst.ER. I of fer this amendment to mont area came to a head in March ing of the amendment be dispensed give the Department of Energy (DOE) 1980, af ter the Di partment of IIousing f.
4 authority to take remedial action.at with'e PRESIDING OFFICER. With, designated property in the vicinJty of and Urban Development (IIUD) gave out objection. it is so ordered.
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) the town notice that it would no Th The amendment is as follows:
uranium mill site at Edgemor t, S.
longer insure housing mortgages for homes that were found to exceed the On page 15. after line 23. add a new section Dak.
to read as follows:
The Uranium Mill Tailings Act of Environmental Protection Agency's tion sith the Environmental Protection 1978 was enacted to assist in the (EPA's) radi Sr.c.
.<a) The Commission, in consulta.
w s p[d.#e @7, 9. $pl_*
. g.g y. x,,P ;.f.. ; z y% i O -
pw.
& % M/,.[ p.;f,yf. ; y Qi z... y y n :, e,;;, ;, ;,. 3;.;.'_ [.(_
?
'L 2 4 ' )
JD h-k;
.-Y'-
. -7
_e i;.g mn s,
, q : :,.,: y y
,,, s 4 3. 3.s -
..v-,ne. c.
a.
- -~
.i-.
/
T 'Miurh ff,198S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE.
S 2483 h
I personally visited Edhemint and Thit is gxactly the tray it has oc. exceed
- before ths figure "$20.400.000"; on spoke with area residents about the curred and we appreciate his explana. page 4 line 1 nse,rt t e ords a o s
problem. I also offered several amend. tion of the amendment.
ments during the 96th Congress to au, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does. 83.500.000" and "$4.500.000"; and on page
~
thorize this remedial action.and ap-the Senator from South Dakota move 4.
line 4 change "$45.500.000" to "an propriate funds, but. unfortunately, his amendment?
amount not to exceed $45.500.000".
(6) On page 4. line 7. change "$19.095.000" legal barriers have remained.
Mr. ABDNOR. I shall do that after to "$21.900.000".
The source of the radiation in the the expiration of the time. Mr. Presi-(7) On page 4.
line
- 10. change town is a former uranium. mill. dent.
"$41.644.000" to "$37.000.000*.
s
[
Through EPA investigations various Mr. HART. Mr. President, this (8) On page 7. line 15. strike "(2) the final houses in the Edgemont community amendment would provide authority safety evaluation report on the application were determined to have exceedingly for the Department of Energy to begin by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission high levels of radiation. It was found. work on remedial action for mH1 tail.
~ *"d
. that some houses in the community ings at the Edgemont site, as the dis-
, t ini S ey a ton had been built with mill tailings as tinguished Senator from ' South Report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-backfill.
sion staff and the NRC staff's first supple.
Throughout the Government's deal-Dakota has outlined. Although DOE is ment to the report prepared in response to ready. It needs the authority to go for-the report of the Advisory Committee on ings with the community of Edge-ward. I agree with the case that the Reactor Fafeguards for the facility;".
mont, there have been delays in secur. Senator has made to cleanup offsite (9) On page 9. line 7. strike "date on which ing remedial actions for the properties mill ta!!!ngs of Edgemont. It will a final operating license for such facility l
contaminated with uranium mill tail. reduce the public health and safety would otherwise issue under this Act.". and ings. The Department of Energy has hazards that sites of this sort present I
determined that it _cannot proceed in his State and in my State and. un-d gin full wer op with the remedial actions necessary fortunately,in too many States.
adon."
until Congress provides authorization.
I join the Senator from Wyoming in insert in lieu thereof:
(10) on page 11. strike lines 5 and 6. and The Department also indicates that it endorsing and supporting the amend-
"e. The authority to issue new interim op.
)
is prepared to proceed soon after re.
- ment, erating licenses under this section shall ceiving statutory authority.
Mr. ABDNOR. I thank the Senator expireon December 31.1983.".
The purpose of this amendment is to from Colorado.
(11) on page 11. lines 11,19 and 21, insert grant the authority needed to begin Mr. President. I move adoption of " facility" before the word" license".
this important task. I can assure my
(
my amendment.
(12) On page 13. Um 9, imert "or an inten co' leagues here that from my contacts The PRESIDING OFFICER. The irn graung ucense" amr the word "le with the people of Edgemont there is question is on agrecing to the amend. *E 'On page 13. beginning on line 16' no question but that this. amendment ment of the Senator from South
.is very important to the well-being of Dakota (Idr. AsDNoR).
strike section 303'15. beginrJng on line 16.
the Edgemont community. I hope that The amendment (UP No. 834) was strike section 304.
(
(14) On page this amendment will receive the sup-agreed to.
port it merits. and urge my colleagues to readily adopt it.e Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. this amendment makes a number of
)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. President.
changes to the bill that are of a tech.
nical and clarifying nature In addi-te t
hed S nat to Sou
- 8
- m n on h ta le' Dakota. As the sponsor of the amend.
portions of the bill to reflect changes ment pointed out. this amendment is W
- N N 8 885 that have occurred since the commit.
similar to one adopted last year by the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tee reported the bill last May.
Senate on the NRC authorization bill Senatodrom Wymning.
- First. the amendment provides an for fiscal year 1981. That measure Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I send
- failed due to inaction by the House.
to the desk an amendment. and I ask overall reduction in the level of spend.
ing authorized for the agency for Mr. President. the Edgemont situa-for its immediate consideration.
fiscal year 1982 of $10 million. This re-tion,is a unique one. We recognize The PRESIDING OFFICER. The duction reflects the present con.
that. Although the Edgemont sits is amendment will be stated.
straints on the Federal budget In gen-an inactive uranium mill site.1;, was in.
The assistant legislative clerk read eral. and is more consistent with the cluded in the remedial action program as follows:
amounts now appropriated to the established by the Uranium Mill Tall.
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. SimF-NRC for fiscal year 1982.
ings Radiation Control Act of 1978 be-son). for himself and Mr. HARr. propose $ an cause TVA held a current license from unprinted amendment nebered 835.
Second. the amendment makes sev.
eral adjustments in the allocation of NRC for the mill. Although TVA is ob.
Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous the authorization of $485.200,000 ligated and has agreed-this is impor-consent that further reading be dis-among the Commission's major pro-tant-to clean up the mill tallings on pensed with.
gram categories. These adjustments the Edgemont site. It has no legal re.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-take into account the Commission's sponsibility for cleanup of the tallings out objection. It is so ordered.
most recent estimates of budgetary at the offsite locations. As I under.
The amendment is as follows:
needs in several areas. including the
- stand the Senator's amendment. it (1) On page 2.
line 9 change increased reactor licensing effort and would incorporate into the remedial "s495.700.000" to -8485.200.000".
licensing requirements for the Clinch
(; -
action program of the Mill Tailings (2) on, age 2 line 11 change River breeder reactor.
p Act these offsite mill tailings loca- [,5.6ko g
se s6
an oun{
Third, the amendment makes three tions. Also. the amendment would con-not to exceed $6.500.000" and on page 2.
clarifying changes to the provision in firm the monitoring and engineering line 16. Insert "an amount not to exceed-the bill. section 201. granting the Com.
t assessment program now underway by before the figure "$1.000.000'.
mission the authority to issue interim NRC that would precede the cleanup (3) On Jage 2.
line 19, change operating licenses for new nuclear itself at these offsite locations.
"s67.424.000" to "s62.900.000"; on page 2 powerplants. The first of these Indeed. Mr. President. we appreciate lines 22 and 23. insert the words "an amount changes makes it clear that a petition the work of the Senator from South nt to before the figures
$5,013.000, exceed" for an interim operating license may
' and $6.300.000 Dakota and his thoughtfut response to be filed af ter the issuance of the NRC an extraordinarily unique situation in
' his State.
"$46.257 000" to 338 500.
0".
staff's safety evaluation report and
- 15) on page 3.
line 21, change the supplement to that report pre.
Mr. ABDNOR. I thank the Senator for that very thorough explanation. "s245.670.000" to "$240.300.ca3"; on page 3.
pared by the NRC staff in response to line 24, insert the words "an amount not to the report of the Advisory Committee
S 24S4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MarchT2,1989 cn Reactor Safeguards. There m2y Finally, hir. President, the amend. from the Office of Science and Tech-
'well be supplements to the NRC ment strikes the provision in the bill, nology Policy, and other appropriate staff's SER prepared after this point, section 304, that requires DOE and executive agencies. It plans to consult and this change makes it clear that NRC to enter into a memorandum of in a meaningful fashion with industry, the interim operating license petition understanding regarding radioactive environmental and public interest could precede these later supplements, wastes from the Three Mile Island ac-groups. and State and local organiza-The second of these clarifying changes cident cleanup.
tions. NRC also has embarked upon its more precisely defines the third test in hiy colleague from Colorado and I own licensing reform task force. DOE the bill for the issuance of an interim were both involved in seeing that that will endeavor to work closely with operating license. Under that test, the was placed in the provision, and I am NRC to enable the administration to Commission must find that there pleased to report that after the com-propose a coordinated set of appropri-would be a licensing delay for the mittee adopted that provision, the ate improvements in the licensing plant if the interim operating license agencies completed their work on that process well in advance of the timeta-were. not issued. The revised test memorandum of understanding. It is ble for the advisory panel contemplat-would permit issuance of the interim finished, and that provision is there-ed by section 303.
license if the Commission finds that fore no longer required.
. Mr. President, it now is late in there would otherwise be a delay be-That concludes the summary of the March and it appears likely that this toen the expected date of plant com-ch2nges made by this technical bill probably will require a conference pletion and the expected date on amendment, and I move the adoption because of certain significant differ-chich the plant would otherwise begin of the amendment.
ences from the IIouse-passed bill. As a full-power operation. The third hir. HART, Mr. President, I fully result, it will probably be at least change makes it clear that the Com-support the effort of the floor man-if not later in 1982, before any April"rence report on this legislation mission's authority to issue new inter-ager and chairman of the committee confe im operating licenses expires on De-in this matter. He has stated the case could be enacted. Consequently, the cember 31,1983, but that any interim adequately, and I support the adop-requirement for this independent advi-licenses issued before that date may tion of the amendment and endors,e sory panel could lead to NRC and advi-continue in effect beyond the end of the proposal by the Senator.
sory panel action which could con-1983.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who sume the balance of calendar year Fourth, the amendment makes a yields time?
1982 and certainly extend well beyond change to the provision in the bill, sec-'
Mr. McCLURE. 'Mr. President, will the adjournment of the 2d session of tion 202, that authodzes the NRC to the Senator from Wyoming yield to the 97th Congress. In that esent, the issue and to make immediately effec-the Senator from Idaho?
rep rt required of the advisory panel tive license amendments that involve Mr. SIMPSON. Lir. President, I might not be considered by the Con-no significant hazards consideration. yield to the Senator from Idaho.
gress until calendar year 1983.
This change makes it clear that this Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator Mr. President, I commend the com-provision in section 189 of the Atomic for yielding.
mittee for the action that it has taken Energy Act applies to facility licenses Mr. President, section 303 of the bill
, and not to materials licenses.
would establish an independent advi-not only in the total legislation before Fifth, the amendment deletes the re-sory panel to evaluate the effective-us but also in the technical amend-quirement for the nuclear powerplant ness and efficiency of the current li. ment now pending, and particularly licensing study that is contained in censing process and to report its find. with respect to the removal of the re-section 303 of the bill.
Ings to the NRC and the Congress quirement for the advisory panel.
After the committee adopted this within 180 days of enactment.The sec-I take this time only to say that at provision. Mr. President, both the tion sets forth the specific procedures the time this was put into the bill, it NRC and the Department of Energy for establishment of the advisory seemed an advisable thing to do, and began internal studies of the licensing panel by the NRC, including member-as a matter of fact the other body has l
process that are aimed at the develop-ship, expenses, the substantive focus done so in their pending legislation.
ment of nuclear powerplant licensing of its efforts. and reporting require-I seek the statement of the Senator f
reform proposals early this year. The ments. The panel is exempted froM from Wyoming and the managers of I
f Commi"lon has also agreed to estab-certain requirements of the Federal the bill, when it goes to conference, 11sh an independent review group for Advisory Committee Act. The commit-what their attitude would be if the the purpose of evaluating and report-tee amendment would strike section House keeps the advisory panel in ing to the Commission on legislative 303 and remove the requirement for their proposed legislation, as to and administrative proposals for re-such an advisory panel.
whether or not the Senate conferees forming the licensing process. A focus Mr. President, at the time this provi-would strongly urge our position of re-of this review group's efforts will be sion was adopted. In early May of last moving the advisory panel.
the legislative and administrative year, the new administration was still The PRESIDING OFFICER. The' reform proposals now being developed in the formative stages in terms of Senator from Wyoming
- i l
by the Commission's Internal Regula-both personnel and policies related to Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I j
tory Reform Task Force, although the nuclear power. Since that time, howev-thank the Senator from Idaho for review group will be free to make er, the open positions at the NRC tMse points of clarification.
other recommendations rnd comments have been filled and the President has to the Commission. The Cumission is enunciated his nuclear power policy in He, indeed. In my time here has fol-in the process of selecting iCividuals a formal policy statement and in a lowed the issue of regulation of the to serve on this review group Oo re-series of related programmatic and nuclear industry in more adept fash-l flect a range of interests and perspec-policy actions at NRC and the Depart. lon than many, and I appreciate his l
tives and who have a detailed knowl-ment of Energy. One essential element assistance.
l edge of, and direct experience with, of the President's formal policy state-Mr. McCLURE. I assume that the the nuclear powerplant licensing proc-ment on nuclear power was the Prest. Senator from Wyoming would seek to ess. We believe that the Commission's dent's directive that the Secretary of prevall, in the event of a conference efforts to move forward with this inde-Energy give immediate priority atten-with the IIouse. If, indeed. they do not pendent review effort will achieve the tion to recommending improvements remove the advisory panel, as set forth purposes of section 303 of the bill and in the nuclear regulatory and licensing in their legislation, and you should arrive at conference with them with will avoid any unnecessary delay in process.
the consideration of IIcensing reform DOE has implemented that directive legislation from the IIouse with such issues by NRC or the administration. by forming a task force whose efforts an advisory panel, this amendment l
Therefore, section 303 of the bill is no are now well underway. That task stating your position would be strong-longer needed.
force will also include representation ly held in the conference, I assume.
k l
I March 23,1882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2185 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Presid:nt, in cll Finctly, tha court's order bars the had rejected similar psychological ears I shall try to preseru the Sen. NRC from making a decision on the stress arguments in six other proceed.
ate's position on that.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator restart of TMI-1 pending completion ings. Two of these are proceedings for from Wyoming.
of the environmental assessment and. 'the issuance of new powerplant oper.
if necessary, an environmental impact ating licenses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does statement-the Senator from Wyoming yield Mr. President, I believe the court's Requiring the consideration of psy-time?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield now to the judgment in the Pane case that psy-chological stress in these cases would Senator from Colorado.
chological health and well-being must almost certainly delay the istuance of be considered by the NRC, pursuant to these licenses, and would very likely The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the National Environmental Policy lead to a flood of psychological stress the Senator from Wyoming dispose of the amendment now pending?
Act, before the Commission may allow contentions in other pending and Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. We do have an the restart of TMI-1 represents a to-future NRC proceedings.
tally incorrect reading of the require.
If the court's decision extends to amendment before the body.
ments of NEPA.
other agencies as well. virtually every The PRESIDING OFFICER. There In addition, I believe the court's major construction or development is an amendment before the body. The judgment has potentially serious ad. {r eq[i ng ec dera ppro question is on agreeing to the amend-verse consequences in the case of 9,d ment.
TMI-1 restart proceedings, in the military instIllations-would become j
The amendm'ent (UP No. 835) was agreed to.
Ccmmission's other licensing actions, targets for psychological stress conten-and in a variety of other actions by tions under NEPA.
l Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I
)
numerous Federal agencies. For these Mr. President. I do not bellese that move to reconsider the vote by which reasons, I believe the Congress should the Congress ever intended NEPA to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to act promptly to reverse the court's require the consideration of psycho-lay that motion on the table.
judgment in this case by making it logical stress as an envfronmental The motion to lay the amendment clear as a matter of law that the NRC impact-in a case such as the restart on the table was agreed to.
is not required to consider the effects of Three Mile Island Unit One, in of any of its actions on psychological yield to the Senator from Idaho.
health or well.being.
NRC's other licensing actions, or in Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I Mr. President, the most immediate the actions of other Federal agencies.
)
Ur awrxnwrar so. sse '
impact of the court's decision will be My amendment would make this clear.
l I urge the adoption of the amend-l Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I on the restart of TMI-1. The NRC ment.
send an amendment to the desk and staff has estimated that the prepara-ask for its immediate consideration.
tion of an environmental assessment Mr. President, appended to. my state-l The PRESIDING OFFICER. The of psychological stress will require at ment is a list of psychological, or at amendment will be stated, least 6 months.
least so-called, stress situations involv.
l The legislative clerk read as follows:
If, after preparing such an assess-ing environmental impact statements I
The Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCmr> ment, the NRC finds that psychologi. under the court order where Federal proposes unprinted amendment No. 836.]
ca! stress resulting from the restart of funds are involved. I refer to the possi-Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President I ask TMI-1 will be significant, the Commis-bility of interstate highways, airports.
l unanimous consent that further read-sfon must then prepare an environ-low. income housing projects, section d
Ing of the amendment be dispensed mental impact statement, which the 404 permits under the Federal Water with..
NRC staff estimates will require an Pollution Control Act. Forest Service I
The PRESIDINO OFFICER. With. additional 6 months, programs, Bureau of Reclamation out objection, it is so ordered.
If the court imposes further proce. projects, Corps of Engineers projects, The amendment is as follows:
dural requirements on the NRC such energy projects, urban renewal-devel-opment activities, actions affecting On page 12. after line 19, add a new sec. as the requirement to conduct an adju.
tion to read as fo!!aws.
dicatory hearing on the issue, as the historic sites, actions involving toxic Sec.
tax chapter to of the Atomic court has done in at least one instance substances, including pesticides.
Energy Act of 1954 as amended, is amended in the past, the hearing would likely Mr. President, the list goes en and br adding the fonowing new section at the require at least 6 more months.
on where the possibility of claims end thereof.
Thus, it is entirely possible that IW made by various persons with respect "Sec. 112. Psycnor.oGtcrL HEALTH AMD to so Called psychological stress woul Wru. BEING.~
years or more Could be required to "Notwithstanding any other provisions of comply with the court's ruling. Such a open such a tremendous Pandora,ds l
law. the Commission shall not be required delay in the restart of TMI-1 could box that I think it is well for us to ed.
l to consider the effects of any of its actions very well jeopardize the commitments dress that question now and immedi-on psychological health or well being.".
that have been made by the State ately*
"(bL The table of contents for such Chap. public utility commissions in Pennsyl.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I ter 10 is amended by adding the following var.'1 and New Jersey to designate say to my good friend, and neighbor,
)
new item at the end thereof:
j ratepayer funds for the cleanup of the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
"Src. 112. Psvenot.oGICAL HrETH AND l
l Wru, Brzwo.".
Three Mile Island unit two.
that I certainly agree with all of his-l Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, this In any event, under present arrange. comments, and I fue support the rea-l amendment would reverse a judgment ments, such funds cannot actually be sons that he has presented for his Issued on January 7,1982, by the U.S. spent for cleanup until TMI/1 is re. amendment.
stored to service.
Court of Appeals in the case of Pane Mr. President, this potential of the I am very troubled by the extremely I would even add an additional point.
against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory court's decision to delay further, or subjective nature of the phrase "ps Commission. In that judgment, the even to jeopardize, the clean.up of chological health of ne!ghboring resi.
{
, court ordered the NRC to prepare an TMI-2 is only one of the possible con. dents and the well-being of the sur-environmental assessment of the ef-3 fects of restart of Three Mile Island sequences of this decision. The court's rounding ' communities," to use the Unit One on " psychological health of requirement that psychological stress words of the court. Unlike the kinda of be considered an environmental neighboring residents and on the well-being of the surrounding communi-impact under NEPA may well extend environmental impacts that are now routinely considered pursuant to ties." The court further ordered the to other NRC licensing actions, and to NEPA, psychological health and well-a wide range of actions by other Fed.
NRC, if it finds such effects to be sig-eral agencies.
being are not objectively determinable mficant, to prepare a full environmen.
or measurable. I feel that the court's tai impact statement.
In the case of NRC, at the time of decision in the Pane case will lead the I
the court's decision, the Commission Commission, and perhaps other Feder-
m ~
i Y CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN' ATE March 29, IB82
)j S 2486 scribed or issued under this section. In pir-(
al agencies as well. into a morass of are available, and that the committee ticular, the report shall:
g speculetion rond subjective judgement. will act expeditiously to report out any identify any information protected
"(1)
This decision might well lead to pro-necessary corrective legislation using from disclosure pursuant to such regulation tracted hearings in which competing whatever legislative vehicle is avally cr order; panels of psychologists and psychia-ble at that time to assure prompt en-
-(2) specifically state the Secretary,s justi.
trists argue about the state of mind of actment.
- the community. Perhaps the decision Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am $1N[on Nt e formatiYn rt t
- may even require public referenda in pleased to provide those assurances to from disclosure under such regulation or cases wherg psychological stress is al-the distinguished Senator from Idaho order could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health 1:ged.
and pledge to do so. I certainly believe and safety of the public or the common de-ll Certainly, whatever means the Com-that some legislation will be needed to fense and security by significantly increas-mission selects for assessing psycho-correct the court's erroneous interpre-ing the likelihood of illegal production of logical health and well-being is likely tation of NEPA in sufficient time to nuclear weap rs r theft, diversion, or sabo-to be challenged as inadequate, lead-avoid unwarranted impacts on the
- 8 I
ing to further litigation and delay. I, Commission's l! censing actions.
g,c[nt,,,",","j'p%gg"*Md r'su onE.of for one, certainly share your view that This approach will allow us to close-this section; and this is something that was never in-ly tailor the legislative solution to the
.*(3) provide justification that the Secre-tended by the Congress when it en-problem. I also add that this matter tary has applied such regulation or order so a:ted the National Environmental has been siiscussed with the distin-as to protect from disclosure only the mint-Policy Act.
guished 3enator from Vermont, the mum amount of information necessary to hir. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ap-chairman of the Environment and protect the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security."
preciate the comments of the distin-Public Works Committee, and he Mr. HART Mr. President, I offer guished Senator from Wyoming, and I stands by these assurances as well.
what I hope will be a noncontroversial share the concerns that he has men-Mr. HART. Mr. President, although amendment to section 148 of the tioned.
I am not yet convinced of the need for Atomic Energy Act. Section 148. en-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there legislation in this case, I would cer. acted last IV as part of the DOE Na-is one other comment that I should tainly support the assurances made by tional Security Programs Authoriza-like to make about this amendment. the distinguished Senator from Wyo. tion Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-90),
As the Senator from Idaho knows, we ming that the committee will actively authorizes the Secretary of Energy to are in a somewhat unusual situation consider this matter, in:!uding the withhold from disclosure unclassified with the Pane case. Although the need for legislation, as soon as the Information pertaining to the design court issued its two-page judgment on court issues its opinions.
of production or utilization f acilities, January 7, it has not yet seen fit to Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I safeguards, and the design of atomic issue its opinions, which will explain thank my distinguished colleagues, the court's rationale and define the and with those assurances on behalf of weapons.
As passed by the Senate, this' provi-scope-of the decision. We discussed the committee. I withdraw the amend. sfon included a subsection (c) that sub-this matter with the Commission in ment at this time.
our budget hearing earlier this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. jected to judicial review the Secre-Although several of the Conunission-ARitsTRoNc). Without objection, the tary's exercise of this authority, and a subsection (d) that directed the Secre-ers expressed serious concerns about amendment is withdrawn, tary to publish quarterly a report de-the Pane decision, particularly if it ex*
em g
no..n tailing the application of every regula-tends beyond the restart of TMI-1, the s%sc To amen Atomic Energy Act Commission was unable to provide us under the provis!on.
g with an assessment of the precise Mr. HART. Mr. President. I send to During conference with the Ifouse, scope and impacts of the decision' the the desk an amendment and ask for its these two subsections were dropped.
l Thus, as a consequence of immediate consideration.
court's failure to complete its work in The PRESIDING OFFICER. The My amendment today would simply restore these two subsections to sec-this cace, the committee has not yet amendment will be stated.
tion 148. I urge Senate passage of this been able to assess the scope of the de, The legislative clerk read as follows:
amen reasons. MM, cision or its likely impact. Given the seriousness of legislating any changes The Senator from Colorado (Mr. HART) without these two subsections the j
to NEPA, some of our colleagues have proposes an unprinted amendinent num. Secretary of Energy can withhold in-urged postponing any legislative formation free from the public scrutt-l bered 837.
action until after the court's opinions Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask ny necessary to guard against abuse of become available and the committee is unanimous consent that reading of the this authority. The withholding of in.
>)
able to assess the scope and impact of amendment be dispensed with, formation from the public is a serious The PRESIDING OFFICER. With, business. We should at least insure an 7
the decision.
I therefore inquire of the sponsor of out objection. it is so ordered.
independent review of the Secretary's I
the amendment if he would be willing The amendment is as follows:
exercise of this authority. These sub.
to withdraw the amendment at this On page 12. after line 19. add the follow. sections will do just that.
time with the understanding that the ing new section:
Second, restoring these two subsec-SEC
. (a) Sectlon 1483. (1) of the AtomjC committee would actively consider this Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended tions to section 148 wculd carry out matter-and in a very prompt manner-after the court issues its by inserting immediately after - Secre-the stated intent of the Armed Serv.
tary")" a comma and the following: "with,re-Ices Committee, when it reported this
[a ofth tEcNeb'A'et section, to make this u mision consist-opinions in the Pane case, Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I
'P,'b> se t1 ent with section 147 of the Atomic agree with my colleague that it 13 of 1954, as amended. Ls amended by adding Energy Act. Section 147 grants the somewhat difficult to assess the at the end thereof the following new subsec-NRC similar authority to withhold in-impact of this case. and to arrive at an tions:
formation about safeguards for NRC-appropriate legislative solution, in the "d. Any determination by the Secretary concerning the applicabil;ty of this section licensed f acilities. The NRC provision.
absence of the court's opinions.
shall be subject to judicial review pursuant however, provides for judicial review I reluctantly agree to withdraw the to subsection (ax4H Bl ot section 552 of title of. and periodic public reports on, the amendment at this time if the distin.
NRC's exercise of its authority.
guished chairman and ranking minor-f II($t*cretary[h pr'epare on a quar.
I urge the Senate to accept this ity member of the Nuclear Regulation terly basis a report to be made available amendment, and I hope my colleague Subcommittee will assure me that the upon the request of any interested person, from Wyoming will support this meas-committee will hold hearings on this detailing the secretary's application during matter as soon as the court's opinions that period of every regulation or order pre-ure.
h b.
IP F -
Marrh if,1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2487 Mr. fi!MPSON. Mr. President. I sup-The senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLunt) criteria is highly prescriptive and in port the amendment offered by the proposes an unprinted amendment num-the absence of a scientific basis was
~
distinguished Senator from Colorado.
bered 838-the mortgage that was undertaken by In the 96th Congress. as part of the Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I ask the Federal Government to continue NRC fiscal year 1980 authorization, unanimous consent that reading of the the licensing of nuclear powerplants.
the NRC was given the authority to ' amendment be dispensed with.
The mortgage ims been virtually paid withhold certain narrowly-defined cat.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With. through the successful operation and egories of safeguards information re. out objection, it is so ordered, testing at lof t-lated to activities over which the NRC The amendment is as follows:
The intent of my amendment is to has jurisdiction. That authority is set on page 6 after line 13. add the following require that NRC incorporate the data forth in section 147 of the Atomic new section: of the amounts authorized to that it has obtained as well as the les.
Energy Act.
be used for the Loss-of Fluid Test Facility in sons it has learned from the operation In November 1981, section 148 was 3cjoQ "'y,h Nga2 and j98 of LOFT into a revision of the existing l
t "
,f eCom added to the Atomic Energy Act, ex-mission shall provide funding through con. appendix K to 10 CFR 50. I think this tending to the Department of Energy tract with the organization responsible for is necessary to establish the true authority similar to that granted the the less-of Fluid Test operations for a de. safety margins that exist in the event NRC in 1980. In accordance with the tailed technical review and analysis of re-that an emergency core cooling system requirements of section 148, DOE now search results obtained fYom the Imss-of. Would be required tn the event of an-has the authority to withhold certain Fluid Test Facility research program. The is shaU be f[ accident. In this way the credibility of information related to atomic energy C*I
'v w an the licensing process will be enhanced defense programs.
rpose Ing to the Commission appropriate rettstons through the proper quantifications of Mr. President, as I understand it, the to Appendix K to Part 50 of the Commis. the margins of safety truly available intent of this technical amendment is ston's regulations in accordance with the from the safety systems and this simply the procedural requirements less-of-Fluid Test research results. The con. should be a first attempt to move NRC applicable to the withholding of un-tract shall provide funding for not less than to consider the way in which they in-classified information by the Depart. twenty man raars in each of fiscal years corporate their research and develop-ment of Energy and the Nuclear Regu. 1982 and 1963 to conduct the technical ment results into licensing criteria.
latory Commluton pursuant to sec-I"l'* ^^d ^^^IYSI*'.Mr. Pre'sident Mr. President I urge the adoption of tions 147 and 148 of the Atomic Mr. McCLARE
, nu-my amendment.
Energy Act. As those provisions now
'8#
fr The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who b ic r earc *
. se stand, Congreas has imposed certain reporting and judicial review require-development' rmd testing. Basic re-yields time?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am se h,
e eje pleased to accept this amendment by o
testin r
ments that differ based upon the d t gs te e f ea Agency or Department withholding
'the information, rather than the type tion required for the computer codes my colleague from Idaho. I know how of information to be withheld. This NRC uses to !! cense nuclear power. carefully he has followed this issue. Of amendment, if adopted-and I certain-plants and for the computer codes course, there is e.xcellent research work being done at the loss of fluid dust s
the esi e
ly support it-will cure this statutory test facility (LOFr). Thus far, this re.
Inconsistency by establishing uniform g d f
ty pe er requirements for the. withholding of fa search work has established conf!-
dence, based upon actual test results, such information. As I also under-testi g f the e ti en of g stand, this amendment would conform water reactor emergency core cooling that the Commission's emergency core the language of section 148 to the lan-systems. After the Three Mile Island cooling requirements in appendix K to guage originally passed by the Senate. accident, the LOFT facility activities part 50 of the NRC regulations are in Mr. President I support the amend-were promptly redirected to examine fact very conservative models for plant ment and I am pleased to accept it.
several problems that could be faced behavior. The Senator's amendment b opem would carry this important research I will yield to anyone else wishing to address the amendment.
o a mal reak a e t simila work one step further by actually ap-Mr. HART. Mr. President. I move to that which occurred at Three Mile plying the LOFT test results to the de-the adoption of the amendment.
Island. The results of that testing at vel pment of appropriate revisions to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all LOFT were new procedures for the op-the Commission's regulations.
time yielded back on the amendment? eration of the main cooling pumps at Mr. President. I believe that this is a Mr. HART. I yield back the remain-commercial nuclear powerplants in the worthwhile effort and that it will lead der of my time.
event of a break similar to that which to an improved and more accurate set Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the re-occurred at Three Mile Island. The of regulatory requirements. I com-6 mainder of my time.
LOFr facility has proven to be invalu-mend the Senator from Idaho for this i
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able in assisting in the post.TMI anal-amendment, and I am pleased to s
question is on agreeing to the amend-ysis that was done for small breaks accept it on behalf of the majority.
3 and for the work necessary to estab-I yield to the Senator from Colorado
- "t-lish correct responses for commercial, for any comments.
- The amendment (UP No. 837) was agreed to.
ly licensed plants to similar types of Mr. HART. Mr. President, I support the arguments of the Senator from t
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to events $ concerned, however, that the I an Wyoming and aline myself witT1 his reconsider the vote by which the results of the testing at LOFT have position on this matter and urge the 3
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that not found their way into the licensing adoption of the amendment.
process.
M r. McCLURE. Mr. President. I motion on the table.
The testa performed at LOFT thus yield back our time.
e The motion to lay on the table was far have confirmed that appendix K to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does agreed to.
10 CFR 50, the criteria that NRC uses the minority also yield back his time?
t'F AMUDMMT NO. 8 3 8 and has been using for the last 8 years Mr. HART. I yield back my time.
(Purpose: To review and analyze the Loss-to license the emergeny core cooling Mr. McCLURE. I call for the ques.
V offluid Test research program results) systems at nuclear powerplants, is tion.
e Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I highly conservative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All send to the desk an amendment and Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 is the in-time having been yielded back, the 3
ask for its immediate consideration.
terim criteria that NRC specified for question is on agreeing to the amend.
e The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the licensing of emergency core cool. ment of the Senator from Idaho.
6 amendment will be stated..
Ing systems pending the availability of The amendment (UP No. 838) was The legislative clerk read as follows: the data from the loft facility. This agreed to.
k
-{
2 March W,1982 k
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE h
<1 S 2488 tensive seismic design verification pro-Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I The study shall also include a survey of rep-p resentative sites at which quality assurance gram.The NRC also wants the compa-I move to reconsider the vote by which and quality control programs are operating ny to reexamine its quality assurance i
the amendment was agreed to.
satisfactortly, and an assessment of the rea-f Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I L
move to lay that motion on the table. * [Th [$mmission shaII undertake a At the Zimmer facility in Moscow.
(
Ohio, the NRC's Chicago regional The motion to lay on the table was pilot program to review and era!uate pro-office failed to act on reports raised grams underway that inetude one or more of agreed to.
the alternative concepts identified in sub-over a year ago. of faulty construction er aumwourxt No ess section (b) for the purposes of assessing the practices, including charges of improp-er pipe welding. Fortunately, the a!!e-Mr. FORD. Mr. President I send an b y be i ot e en gations Were pursued by a concerned amendment to the desk and ask for its p
p g,
Immediate consideration.
include programs underway that use inde, public interest group and last Novem-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pendent inspectors for auditing quality as. ber both the Chairman of the NRC amendment will be stated. The legisla-surance. responsibilities of the licensee for and the head of the Office of Inspec-tive clerk read as follows:
the construction of commercial nuclear The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Pono) powerplanta. as described in paragaph (5) of tor and Auditor admitted that the subsection (2). The pilot program shall in-NRC had indeed been derelict in its for himself. Mr. Smrson. Mr. Haut. Mr. clude at least three sites at which commer-duties, relying too heavily on the utill-Macusu Mr. Caustox. and Mr. Levu, cial nuclear powerplants are under construe. ties to check the work of their contrac-proposes an unprinted amendment num-tion. The Commission shall select at least tors. Cincinnat! Oas & Electric has bered 839.
one site at which quality assurance and been fined $200,000 for a widespread Mr. FORD. Mr. President
- I ask quMy eontro1 programs have operated sat.
unanimous consent that the reading of isfactortly, and at least two sites alth reme-breakdown in its quality assurance the amendment be dispensed with, dial programs underway at which construc-program. Among the rules violated The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-tion, quauty assurance and quanty control were falsification of records supposed out objection, it is so ordered.
deficiencies have been identified in the past. to supply evidence that quallty wark The amendment is as follows:
The ca-mMaa may require any changes was done, and harassment and intimi-In existing quauty assurance and quauty dation of quality control inspectors by On page 15. after line 23, add a new sec. control organizauons and relationships that construction workers.
tion to read as follows:
may be necessary at the selected sites to hr.-
Although significant construction Sr.c.
. (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Com. plement this pilot program.
(d) Not later than eighteen months after deficiencies have not been identified, mission is authorized and directed to imple.
I ment and accelerate the resident inspector the date of enactment of this Act, the Com-the fact that the lack of sufficient program so as to assure the assignment of at mission shall submit a report to the Senate quality assurance could result in Seri-l ;-
least one resident inspector by the end of and the House of Representatives on the re-ous problems has prompted the NRC 7
fiscal year 1982 at each site at which a com. suits of the study and the pilot program re. to require the establishment of a com-e mercial nuclear powerplant is under con. quired by this section. The report shall in-prehensive quality confirmation pro-struction and construction is more than 15 ciude the recommendations of the Commis-gram to determine the quality of plan percent complete.
(b> 'Ite Commission shall conduct a study sion. Including any necessary legislative
~3 !
changes, and a description of any adnunis-systems important to nuclear safety.
4!
of alternate concepts and existing programs trative actions that the Commission has un-Deficiencies identified by these pro-S contret performance in the construction of dertaken or intends to undertake. for im-Krams will require resolution prior to g:
for improving quality assurance and quality j
commerefal nuclear powerplant.s in con-proving quality assurance and quality con. issuance of an operating license, ducung the study, the Commission shall trol performance in the construction of nu.
Zimmer, I might add, is just on the obtain the comments of the public. clear powerplants.
other side of the Ohio River from licenseesholding construction permits and Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Kentucky.
operattng licenses for nuetear powerplants, amendment I am offering is directed Then, Mr. President, there is the toward the growing problem of inad. matter of Marble 11111 at Madison, equate construction of nuclear facili. Ind.,100 miles away from Zimmer and e
ud ha inciade, u be limited to, the following siternative con. ties in the United States today, a prob. only 30 miles from Louisville, the larg-cepts for improving. quality assurance and lem caused by poor quality assurance / est city In Kentucky. For years I have quality control; (1) adopting a more prescriptive approach quality control programs on the part been trying to make sure that con-to defining principal architectural and engi-of the !!censees and their contractors, struction work there was being done neering criteria for the construction of com-and by poor safety inspection on the properly so that the facility would be as a tNis f$
part of the Nuclear Regulatory Com. the safest possible. Briefly, allegations mission. The amendment attempts to were made at Marble 1I111in early 1979 I
serv y as ne quality control inspection. and enforcement establish for the first time procedures that concrete used in the reactor con-actions:
and mechanisms to correct this into!. tainment building and in an auxiliary (21 requiring. as a condition of the issu-ance of construction permits for commercial erable state of affairs.
building was improperly patched and nuclear powerplaats, that the licensee dem-At this moment, it is very possible onstrate the capability of independent!Y that nuclear plants are being built in therefore substandard. After these claims were ve'rified, the licensee at-such a way that they present F. danger tempted to improve its construction managing the effective performance of all' to the public health and safety. Of he p an utmost concern to me is that fact that practices, but eventually had to shut eYf il down its safety related work. Only (3) encouraging and obt'aining more effee. two of them border on the Common-after the insistence of myself and tive evaluations. Inspections or audits of wealth of Kentucky and w!!! impact others did the NRC finally issue a commercial nuclear powerplant construc-tion by independent industry or institution-heavily on my State if an accident stop-work injunction and initiate an al organizations, based upon best expenence should occur, investigation. Work was resumed earl!-
Perhaps the most recognized esam.
er this year af ter about 1% years' and practices-Iurane pie is Diablo Canyon in California At delay, but not until substantial im-this reactor, sited near an earthquake provements were required in the 11-zat n and m thod for u y velopment, review and inspection. with the faultline, blueprints for units one and censee's quality assurance and quality objective of deriving improvements in the two designating where supports should (5) requiring, as a condition of the issu. be built to withstand stress from control programs.
agency's program; and ance of construction permits for w..n erctal earthquakes were switched. Conse-In every one of these cases there la a
[
nuclear powerplants. thst the licensee con-quently, if you can imagine such a clearly established pattern of fault.
thing. unit one supports have been put The utilities of this country simply Ne*pendInti aud$ti g q all in the wrong place. The NRC voted in must accept the serious responsibility p
o F
assurance responsibinties for the purpose of November to suspend Pacific Gas & of building safe nuclear facilities and i
verifying quahty assurance performance. An Electric's fuel-loading and low-power must recognize the significant differ-independent inspector is a third party who operating license for unit one until the ence between building a coal fired
[
has no responsibiliues for the design or con-utility satisfactorily completes an ex-plant and a nuclear powered gener-struction of the plant.
k-b
- - - - ~ - - - - -
W e
, h March ff,188f CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2489 N' ator. Neither they nor their contrac-is to submit a report to the Congress Members of the nuclear Resulatory Com-tors can ignore the unique problem in-on the results of the study and the mission will be in Cincinnati on Monday to volved. Shortcuts cannot be taked: pilot program. The report shall in-g"y
"(8ud *u
' h' o-g sts y, mistakes must be thoroughly correct-_ clude the recommendations of the 7
ed, not covered up. Management and Commission, including any necessary tion.:hould be sranted a license to bcsin op.
4 cration.
j 6
workers on the site must realize that legislative changes, and a description If the NRC's answer is "yes," the Zimmer b
quality assurance / quality control pro-of any administrative changes that the station, which looms across the Ohio River.
a r
grams are not established to harass Commission has undertaken or in-from this Campbell County town, could them and impede their work. Finally, tends to undertake, for improving besin turning steam heated by a nuclear re-the NRC must inspect more closely quality assurance and quality control action into electricity as early as this a
the construction of nuclear plants. performance in the construction of nu, summer. And thousands of Kentucklans will They must, in fact, be relentless in clearpowerplants.
[
'[,,"i [ g[,g Y,y T afhav $ tN their oversight duties.
In addition to tightening.QA/QC evacuated in case of a nuclear accident. Util.
The amendment I offer today takes programs and upgrading the safety sty spokesmen. however, say such an acci-a stride toward the goal of safe com-oversight role of the NRC, a direction dent is hishly unlikely, mercial nuclear powerplant construc-in which, I am pleased to note, the Residents of parts of three Northern Ken-l t
tion. First, it authorizes and directs agency is already moving, this amend-tucky counties-CampbeII. Pendleton, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ment emphasizes a dimension I have Bracken-wlH be within 10 miles of Zimmer, j
to accelerate its resident inspector pro-long advocated-the participation of the area that would face evacuation in case i
gram so as to assure by the end of third parties. As I mentioned earlier,
'I * **'I'"* ""'I ***Id'""*
j 1982 the assignment of at least one my efforts were successful in having,7,gN,Nti resident inspector at each site at independent engineers placed at n he t of ns which a plant is under construction are within a 50-mile radius of the plant, a Marble Hill to insure that previously sone where officials say food could be con-and more than 15 percent complete.
Second, it directs the Commission to unnoticed flawed concrete was proper-taminated during a leak at Zimmer.
ly repaired.
NRC estimates Zimmer could be licensed conduct a study of ways to improve quality assurance and quality control Increased inspections by independ. to bestn low-level operations this summer.
]
programs. In doing so, the NRC shall ent industry and institutional organi, when it would become one of the few recent solicit the comments of the public, in-zations, and the use of independent in-additions to the nation's ilst of operating i
dustry and the Adviscry Committee or. spectors for auditing all QA/QC verifi- ""n*I""#*"""'""***
fty-six nucless power plant projects Reactor Safeguards. The study is to cati n responsibilities not only offer a were canceled between fiscal 1975 and the include, but not be limited to, the con-system of checks and balances by pro-end of 1981, according to the NRC. Soaring
,cepts of, first, adopting narrower deft-viding a third layer of safety monitor-building costs combined with lower than-ex.
nitions of principal architectural and ing, they also perform another fune-pected electricity demands caused many j
engineering criteria that would serve tion-that of bolstering the public's utilities to reconsider plans to join the nu.
as a basis for QA/QC, inspection and confidence in nuclear energy. Prob. clear power boom of the 1960s, and NRC enforcement actions; second, requiring lems such as those that have occurred spokesman said.
at Diablo Canyon, Zimmer and Noenheless, it is possible that Zinunn i
l as a condition for the issuance of con. Marble Hill have further eroded'what-could be joined by as many as four other
)
I struction permits that the licensee plants within 50 miles of Kentucky in the ever trust in nuclear industry and its next few years.
- j l
- demonstrate its capability to regulators the public had left after Although Kentucky won't have any nucle.
J g,
independently perform all QA/QC re Three Mlle Island. If we are going to l
r sponsibilities; third, encouraging more ar power plants, state Disaster and Emer-
{
effective inspections or audits of com-have nuclear energy in this country it ger.cy services has made plans for dealing i
must be safe-safely constructed, with potential problems at the five nearby t
mercial nuclear facilities by independ.
plan
- 1 ent industry and institutional organi safely operated, and its waste must.be antions; fourth, reexamine the NRC's safely disposed. Nothing less is accept
- Zimmer, near Moscow, Ohio, which will be I
own organization and method for qual. able. It is not too much to ask that the operated by Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Marble unl. near Madison, Ind., and ity assurance development, review and public health and welfare be protected across the Ohio River from Trimble County, inspection, with the objective of deriv-to the maximum extent possible.
a 84.3 bimon two unit electricity producer.
I ing improvements in the agency s pro-I believe my amendment is accept The first unit ts expected to open in 1986, y
grams; and fifth, requiring as a condi. able to the managers of the bill. It has with the semnd unit arriving in 1987.
r y
Lion of the issuance of a construction been drafted in consultation with the Parts of Trimble and Oldham counties Nuclear Regulatory Commission. will be in the plant's 10-mile evacuation j
permit, that the licensee contract or area. Amost 1 million Kentucklans, includ-fe$gs on he rob! m of inadeq
]
3 make other arrangements with an in-jin t
~
il j
- d ty s
i i s f>r safety procedures at nuclear power
- _Phipps Band, rettf5 of Knoxville on the g
purpose of verifying quality assurance plant construction sites. I hope that Tennessee-Viroma border. The Tennessee 4
pedonnance.
the amendment will be retained in Valley Authortty said it spend $981 million 4
Third, and finally, the Commission conference. I urge the adoption of my
(
is directed to undertake a pilot pro-amendment on the planned two units before deciding last August to halt construction because of 141r. Presicient* I ask unanimous con, lower-than expected growth in customer gram for assessing the feasibility and benefits of implementing one or more sent to have printed in the Recono an demand for electricity. If the plant is ever of the above-mentioned concepts, pro-article from the Lexington Herald
- completed, parts of seven southeastern Ken-tucky counties-Harlan. Letcher, Knott, viding that the p!!ot program shall in. Leader of February 28,1982, Pike. Perry, Iss11e and Bell-will be in the clude the use of independent third There being no objection, the article 50-mile zone.
i I
party inspectors for auditing quality was ordered to be printed in the Hartsville, about 50 miles northeast of
)
assurance responsibilities of the licens-Rrcoan, as follows-Nashville, near Hartsville. Tenn. In 1973,
, j 1
1 ee. The pilot program shall include at Nect,zAn Pr.Aars RADIATE CONCERN AaocND TVA deferred two of the four units, and the 3
least three sites at which commercial 8'
utility's directors are expected to decide at their March 4 meeting whether to defer the nuclear power plants are under con-(By Carol Marie Cropper) other two units. Part or all of nine Bowling struction. One must be a site at which MENToa.-An Ordo utility begins on Green-area countles-Warren. Logan Simp.
QA/QC programs have operated sttis. Monday what could be the final step before son. Allen, Barren. Edmonson, Metcalfe, J
factorily and two must be sites at it activates a long-delayed $1.25 billion nu. Monroe, and Cumberland-would be in the which significant construction and clear plant on Kentucky's northern border. plant's 50-mile zone.
1 QA/QC deficiencies have been identi-But the probable completion this year of Clinch R!ver, a government industry ex.
j fled in the past, the first of five nuclear plants near Ken-periment planned near Oak Ridge, Tenn.
tucky colncides w!th the virtual halt to the This new kind of nuclear power generator-No later than 18 months after this once rapid expansion of America's nuclear a breeder reactor-was put on hold under j
legislation is enacted, the Commission power industry, the Carter administration, but President
+
j 1
j j.
i S 2490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 22,1982 1
~
Reacan supporto the $3.2 billion venture. If almost certainly be time to evacuate people ukely to devefop thyroid cancer.... The built, the plan would produce electricity at before they were contaminated by radioac-radiation effecta extend downsind 300 to the same time it makes plutonium 239. tive material.
400 miles from the plant... to the extent which would be fuel to produce more elec-
" Radiation is Just not as scary as a lot of s here it would raise the incidence of cancer i
tricity. 'the target opening date is Septem. people would have you believe." Little said. and birth defects."
her 1988. Parts of five Kentucky counties-The officials at Marble Hill and at Opponents also say Marble 11111 and Wayne, McCreary. Bell. Whitley and ZImmer agreed.
Zimmer may be especially acetdent-prane.
Knox-would be in the 50-mile radius.
Jeff Godsey, a 2S-yearold staff engineer Both plants have been heavily criticized Kentucky offtetally said "no to nuclear at Zimmer, pointed to yard m.fter yard of during their construction.
power during former Gov Julian Carroll's buttons and warning lights in the control Construction of safety related areas of the administration. Thomas E. Ilttle. DES di. room and explained how the system is de-Marble Hill plant halted from August 1979 f
rector of operations, said Carroit made it signed to detect and automatically begin until April 1981 while the NRC imestigated clear that nuclear plants were not wanted in correcting anything from a change in water complaints of defective concrete construc-Kentucky.
pressure in the nuclear reactor to an in-tion at the plant. The NRC eventually de-The no-nukes policy has continued under crease in radiation levels ! caving the plant's c ded there were no signifkant defects, but the Brown administration, he said, but the vents.
14farble lii!! had to upgrade its quality con-state has been powerless to stop construc-There is a provision for manual override tro(l. Ve didn't have enough properly qua!!-
tion of the two plants on its border and the and there are numerous combinations of other three plants nearby.
buttons to push.
fled people with sufficient nuclear construc-
]
Kentucky tried unsuccessfully to prevent But the most interesting buttons are four tion experience to make sure the project the NRC from issuing a construction permit red ones, two sitting on either side of the was going along properly." Bott saii I
I seemed related more to the plight of Ken, main reactor panel. Those buttons are a at Marble Hill, but the state's position omt
,m ead e he N C itt l
kind of emergency provision. If pushed, tucky coal than to concerns about the they shut down the reactor.
last year that an earlier intestigation into safety of Kentucklans.
Godsey described how the pellet.s of radio. such charges by its own agency was faulty.
John U. Bott Jr, nuclear regulation and active uranium would be housed in metal h M nned CN $NOW in Novem-affairs manager for Public Service Indiana, rods bundled inside a steel reactor vessel, ber 1981 for failures in the quality assur-which is building the plant, said. "Their how all that would be contained in one con-ance program at the plant. IAst Wednesday, (Kentucky officials *1 contention was that we crete enclosure that is housed inside the re-T apeed M pay ramer Wn appeal should use low-cost Kentucky coal."
inforced concrete reactor building.
"We do agree that deficieneles existed in Little added. "Iet's face it. Nuclear plants At Marble Hill, the reactor building sits don't burn coal **
on 10 to 12 feet of concrete that was poured implementing our quality assurance pro-gram, and in exercising sufficient surveil-The most visible evidence of the attival of on top of a solid rock foundation, said Brad lance over our construction contractor. the the nuclear age in the Ohio Valley is the Bishop, media services supervisor for Public
,U Zimmer station's 479-f wt water tower. Service Indiana. The silo-ahaped building Henry J. Kaiser Co but we believe that we base fully corrected these deficiencies, which can be seen for miles along the Ken-that sits on that foundatlan and Mll house CGM President William Dickhoner said.
tucky banks of the Ohio.
the nuclear reactor is built of steel with a 4 An NRC report released in 1981 rated Reed Shaw. 70. of Mentor, whose home-foot-thick concrete wall outside and two in.
tou n is in the plant's shadow, said he thinks terior walls that add another 10-12 feet of both Zimmer and Marble II!!! construction
)
- he and his neighbors could not escape f ast reinforced concrete around the reactor, he below average, but offletals at bottr plants argued that those ratings were based on enough if there was a radiation feak.
said.
Even if a leak never comes Shaw said.
These buildings are designed to withstand problems that have since been corrected.
Mentor residents already have lost. His 64-earthquakes and tornadoes, plant officials Mary and Don Reder are tuo former acre farm used to be worth $100.000, he said. They must be strong enough to survive schoolteachers sh3 now spend their time said. Now, I can,t get $50.000 for it, the crash of a commercial jetliner, accord. representing Mentor in its fight against About "fD miles to the west in Trunble ing to the NRC Zimmer. They sill resume their battle f
e^'
The safety features built into the two Monday. shen thc hearings start again.
home ea g o
peo I plants are obnously massive, expensive and They wi!I argue, as they hase argued Marble HiH.
intricate.
before, that the proposed evacuation plans Jack Greenwood, editor of the Trimble But nuclear power opponents and some of to get Kentucky schoolchildren and farmers Banner Democrat, said narrow roads would the Kentucky residents who will live near out of the Zimmer area will not work.
make evacuation impossible the plants point to problems at Three Mile For people like the Reders. Buntin of the "I don't see any reason for the people of Island and other, nuclear power plants as DES said. there is a solution.
Trimble County or Kentucky to safeguard proof that the safeguard.6 can fall "If I lived in that area and I was as much themselves from something that's bad that's "They got a nasty surprise at Three Mlle afra!d of what's going on as, for instance.
j going to benefit some other state." he said.
Island." said IIenry W. Kenda!!. a physics the Reders appear to be, then I'd simply Not everyone in Bedford complains. L E.
Smith, who works at the local Chevron sta, pmfessor at the Massachusetts Institute of move."
tion. said the plant is providing jobs for Technology and one of the founders of the Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am Union of Concerned Scientist. a group op-local citir.cns and there's "nothing you can leased to accept and support this posed to nuclear power. " Things that they do about it no way$" tin Jr executive director thought were impossible mere happening."
amendment and to join as a cosponsor, Gen. Wilbur Bu of the state DES, said his staff has prepared Past nuclear poser plant accidents have Indeed. over the past several months.
evacuation plans for Kentucklans living r.ot been caused by such dramatic events as the Commission has identified a near Zimmer and wi!! develop similar plans earthquakes or bomb explosions but by number of quality assurance and qual-for any other nuclear plant bu!!t sithin 50 breakdowns inside the plant that a. lowed ity control problems at several nuclear j
miles of the state line.
radioactive steam or water to escape from powerplant construction sites. I be-Thick books describe the state's plans to the maze of pipes that circulate in the reac-lieve that this amendment provides an l
i evacuate the 29.000 people living in Zim. tor butiding.
mer's 10-mile zone to nearby Mason. Itarri.
Nuclear power advocates argue that after important Step toward addressing son. Grant and Boone counties.
25 years of nuclear power plant operations. these problems by strengthening Four rooms at the DES office building in there has yet to be an accident that resulted NRC's resident irupector program and Frankfort are equipped with phones to in a single death.
by exploring a number of alternatives Zimmer, rnaps and a computer terminar Robert Gray, chairman of the board of di-to improve quality assurance perform.
printing out information such as the wind rectors of Save the Valley. Inc., a group ance.
directions at Zimmer at d tne rate of radi. made up primarily of Kentucky and Indiana Iirst, the amendment requires that atton release. (If a dingerous radiation leak residents that has opposed Marble 1 1:11.
NRC have a lest one resident inspec-occurred. it probably would b* a reWe into argued that it sa.s just a matter of time.
the atr. DES off!cials say.)
"There is a major nuclear accident out tor at each nuclear powerplant con-But DES cfficials said the pub ic's percep. there. It's statistically very likely.
. We struction site by the end of fiscal year i
tion of the dangers of nuc! ear energy are ex. will see dead bodies."
1982.
aggerated.
Kendall arg'tes against the amertion that Second, the amendment requires a "I think a misconception th at really radiation from a nuc! car poaer plant is not study of existing programs and alter-I causes the pubilt a lot of prchier:n is that a that dangerous. If the ultimate nuclear nate concepts for improving UualitY nuclear power plant is going to blow up and power disaster-a meltdown-wrurred. Ken-1' assurance and quality control perform.
you're going to have to run fcr your life."
tucky's 10-mile esacuation zone 'Ai!! not be Lattle said. "That is aimcst inconcercable."
enough, he said.
ance in the corutruction of nuclear
{
Esen if radiadon leaked into the atmos-
"In a.ajor nucle ar accident. every child powerplants. Five such alternate con.
i phe re. DES officials said, there would that was w: thin 50 miles doa nwind wou!d be cepta are specified in the amendment.
t I
0 3
,q o;.
_ March N,1989 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S MJI Third, the amendment calls for a programs have operated satisfactorily, The amendment would also provide pilot program consisting of programs and at least two must be sites at which for the establishment by the NitC of a j
now underway to gain actual experi-construction, quality assurance, and quality assurance pilot program for at ence with one or more of these con-quality control deficiencies have been least three sites. The pilot program cepts at at least three construction identified in the past. As I understand must include the alternate concepts sites.
it, this requirement is intended to pro-under study. It must also include proj-The concepts that are required to be vide information on a range of sites, ects underway that use independent studied under the amendment include for the purpose of assessing past qual-Inspectors for auditing the quality as-the development of a more preefse ap-ity assurance performance, corrective surance responsibilities of the utility.
proach to defining criteria for plant measures that have been undertaken The amendment is a forceful re-construction, similar to the technical where deficiencies have been found, sponse to the continuing disclosures of specifications that are now developed and the effectiveness and appropriate-design errors and construction mis.
for plant operation; and the require-ness of ongoing programs for third-haps at plant construction sites ment that a licensee demonstrate the party auditing, and other alternate around the. country. As NRC Chair-ability to independently perform qual-concepts, at these sites.
ity assurance and quality control re-man Palladino stated in a speech This requirement is not intended to before the Atomic Industrial Forum:
sponsibilities for the plant. Under the latter concept, the Commission would characterize sites as good or bad in determine the point at which a licens* terms of their present quality assur-th it w int esta d meet ee would be required to demonstrate ance programs. Thus, mere selection high standards expected for nuclear power.
this capability, and the means by for the pilot program in either catego-Their defletences in quality assurance are which this capability would be demon-ry shold not be interpreted as an indi. inexcusable. There have been lapses of strated. One such means, for example
- cation that a site has an acceptable or many kinds-in design analyses, resulting in that would fit this concept is owner unacceptable quality assurance pro. built in des!gn errors; in poor construction certification by the American Society gram. In addition, I believe it is the practices: in falsified documents: in harrass-of Mechanical Engineers, which can intent of the sponsors of the amend-ment of Qu1My e ntd personnd and inad now be granted after the plant is 15 ment that the amendment be imple-percent completed.
mented so as to avoid delays or disrup.
The example of a lapse in quality as.
A third concept to be studied is the tions in plant construction, particular. surance and quality control most of ten more effective use of 'nspections and ly with respect to the pilot program.
referred to is the discovery in Novem.
audits by independent industry and in.
hir. President, I believe the amend. ber 1981 of numerous errors la the stitutional organizations. Such organi-ment is an appropriate step toward design and calculations for the Diablo zations might include the Institute of correcting the types of quality assur. Canyon project. But there have been
_ Electrical and Electronic Engineers' ance problems that we have seen in others, as well. less publicized but the American Society of Mechanical recent months, and I am pleased to co. equally important.
Engineers, and the Institute for Nucle-sponsor the amendment.
In late November 1981, the NRC I thank the distinguished Senator proposed a fine of $200,000 against the Pres ent th I i te or N clea fr m &ntuch for his une work on Cincinnau Gas & DecW Co, M Power Operations has recently begun this amendment. I believe that he has sloppy quality assurance during con.
a program that provides for the estab-made a most valuable and thoughtful struction of its $1.25 billion Zimmer lishment of criteria for evaluating nu-contribution with the amendment, and plant. In announcing the fine, James clear powerplant construction quality he has been most cooperative and Keppler.,I can,t tell youNRC regional ad:ninis assurance and quality control, and for helpful on the issue as has his staff, stated.
audits to verify compliance with these I have no further comments with other Zimmers out there,,,there aren t criteria.
regard to the amendment. I certainly In January 1982, the NRC proposed This industrywide program is a endorse its approval.
a fine of $500,000 against Boston promising step toward improving qual.
Mr. MITCHEII. Mr. President, I Edison for alleged safety violations at ity control and quality assurance in rise as a cosponsor of the amendment its Pilgrim nuclear powerplant. The the construction of nuclear power. Introduced by Senator Fonn which NRC staff reported the a!!eged viola.
plants, and may well be the best would strengthen the quality assur. tions reflected "a lack of management option for bringing much needed im. ance and quality control programs at review and attention that is manifest.
provement to this area. I believe the nuclear powerplants under construc-ed by such problems in design, mainte-industry is to be commended for this. tion.
nance, and operating practices."
initiative, and I believe the Commis.'
The~ Ford amendment mandates Boston Edison was accused of failing sion should pay particular attention to that, by the end of fiscal year 1982, at for 2% years to meet Federal stand-this concept in developing its require. least one resident inspector be as. ards on a system which is desi;ned to ments and recommendations in the signed to each site at which a commer. remove explosive hydrogen gas from area of quality assurance and quality cial nuc! car powerplant is under con. the reactor bu!! ding in the case of an control.
struction and where construction is accident.
Finally, the amendment would re. more than 15 percent complete.
It is in the best interests of utilities, quire the study of the concepts of im.
The amendment also requires the as Chairman Palladino stated, to meet proving the Commission's organization NRC to conduct a comprehen.31ve the high quality assurance standard.;
for quality assurance review, develop. study of alternate concepts and exist. required of them. It pays to meet ment, and inspection, and of requiring ing programs for improving quality as. these standards because it costs if they the use of independent, third party in. surance and quality control perform. are not met. But there is an inherent spectors for auditing and verifying ance in the construction of commercial conflict of interest in this area that quality assurance performance. Pro. powerplants.
one canrat ignore. That is the ecnflict grams now underway at several sites Two of the alternate concepts which caused by the fact that the utility that involve the use of third-party in-the NRC would be required to study building the plant is also responsible spectors for auditing quality assurance are, one, obtaining more effective eval. for the plant's quality assurance. Cut.
performance would be included as part untions, inspections, or audits of ting corners to save money on con-of the pilot program.
powerplant construction by independ. struction can of t en mean cuttin;t Mr. President, I would like to pro-vide one clarification on the selection ent organizations; and two, requiring, corners on safety regulations.
as a condition of the issuance of con-The Ford amendment attempts to of sites to be used for the pilot pro-struction permits, that the licensee minimize this conflict of interest by gram. The amendment requires that contract or make other arrangements upgrading and increasing NRC efforts at least one must be a site at which with an independent inspector to in this critical area. The amendment quality assurance and quality control verify quality assurance performance provides a meaningful alternative to f
s
' S 2492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 22,1M2 i
the strim of disclosures and the string The PRESIDING OFFICER. The plants. The study must specifically
{
of fines.
Senator from Colorado is recognized.
consider requiring, as a condition for The amendment also provides qual.
hir. HART. I thank the Senator.
construction permits, that the utility I
ity assurance before the fact. In effect hir. President, I am a cosponsor and contract with an independent, third-before the utility has spent a prodi. strongly support this amendment of-party inspector for quality control ver-gious amount to build the plant. In fered by the distinguished Senator lfication.
the precess, it may save the utilities a from Kentucky.
Perhaps more important, the Ford i
lot of headaches, expensive delays in The amendment will begin the amendment would establish a p!!ot construction time, and costly fines. much-needed task of upgrading the program for at least three sites where Llore importantly, it will place safety quality control and quality assurance powerplants are under construction to before development, and thereby programs at nuclear powerplants assess the benefits of using independ.
better protect the public health and under construction. I agree with him ent third party inspectors to perform safety.
on the importance of this effort. I con-the utility's quality assurance and a hir. LEVIN. hir. President, I would gratulate him for offering this amend-quality control verification responsibil-like to congratulate my colleague from ment.
itles. The assessment under this pilot Kentucky for proposing such a con.
I aline myself very strongly with it program is one that the Congress structive amendment to the Nuclear and urge its adoption.
shold have required the NRC to make Regulatory Commission arthorization Construction deficiencies, and inade* long ago. I appreciate the work of the bilt As a cosponsor of this amend. quacies in licensees quality assurance / distingushed Senator from Kentucky ment. I would urge my colleagues to quality control programs, have long in encouraging the Senate to address accept this prudent step.
plagued the U.S. commercial nuclear this weakness in the U.S. commercial C
One of the major problems facing power program. The recent disclosure nuclear power program. I urge the ac-of serious construction errors at the ceptance of this amendment.
the nuclear power industry is the in-creasing lack of public confidence in Diablo Canyon powerplant, and the Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank
$200.000 fine levied by NRC against the distinguished Senator from Wyo-the safety of nuclear power. For years we were told that no accidents were Cincinnati Gas & Electric for having ming (Mr. Sturson) and the distin-possible--until accidents started occur-an inadequate QA/QC program at its guished Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Zimmer powerplant. Indicate these HART) for their support of this amend.
ing. Regulators told us their guidelines r
l were foolproof-until it was discovered problems have not disappeared and, in ment.
i that major errors had occured. I be-fact, may have gotten worse.
No two Senators and their staff NRC Chairman Palladino strongly could work any closer with us and our lleve the amendmer.t offered by Sena-tor Foan could help both prevent mis. criticized the nuclear Industry for con-staff. I think we nave an outstandinn; takes and assdre the public that qual-struction deficiencies and inadequacies amendment here that heads us in the ity control will be required. Under in its QA/QC programs. He sad right direction as it relates to the such a program, the utility building a Public health and safety considerations as safety of our nuclear generating facill-well as n n mic imperatives dictate use of ties.
nuclear plant, the NRC, which must 11-cense and regulate nuclear power- $ hd c Mr. President, I yield back the re-nueeu t.
en plants, and the public paying for and construction or operation falls below the malnder of my time.
living next door to the plant can see if highest standards. the entire industry is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does it meets all quality requirements.
hurt * *
- A number of deficiencies at some the Senator from Wyoming yield back Ira my State of Michigan there has plants have v=a to my attention which his time as well?
I, beat a certain amount of mistrust con. show a surprising lack of proam :nalism in Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, yes, I I
cerning the quality control of a nucle-the construction and preparation for oper* do.
I tles The r nslbil ar plants. Those building plants have (, [ch h
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The e
s assured us that they will be safe. What shoulders of management * *
- If the nucle. question is on agreeing to the amend-better way to verify quality control at industry does not do its part no amount ment of the Senator from Kentucky.
than to have such a plant participate of regulatory reform will save it from the The amendment (UP No. 839) was I
in a new system of tndependent inspec-consequences of its own fanures to achieve agreed to.
tors?e the quality of construction and plant oper-Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to i
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the ations it must have for its own we!!-being reconsider the vote by which the 1
{
mover and manager of the bill yield [ ' th' **IyY[L D,uht c
'i amendment was agreed to.
g lures m
back their time.
have recently come to tight. I am not con.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I Mr. HART addressed the Chair.
vinced that all of the industry has been move to lay that motion on the table..
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who doing its part.
The motion to lay on the table was yields time to the Senator from Colo-In addition to the lack of profession. agreed to.
rado?
alism in some cases, noted by Chair.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, will the Mr. HART. Mr. President I have man Pafadino, the quality control ef. Senator yield me some time on the
/
time I think under the time agreement forts by utilities also will suffer from a bill?
f of my own on the bill or on this flawed regulatory philosophy: An in.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I be-amendment.
herent conflict of interest arises be- !! eve I have very limited time remain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does cause the utility constructing the ing on the bili.
the Senator wish to use time on the powerplant, which naturally seeks to May I have a review of that, please?
bill?
minimize construction costs, also has The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we the responsibility for assuring and manager of the bill has 5 minutes and are on the Ford amendment. There is controlling the quality of construe. 42 seconds remaining on the bill itself.
a time agreement on the Ford amend-tion-efforts that could increase the Mr. SIMPSON. How much time does ment which is now being used.
total cost of the project.
my colleague from Colorado have re-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The I support the Ford amendment be-maining?
Parliamentarian advises me that cause it seeks to minimize the inher.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The under the terms of the time agree-ent conflict of interest that results Senator from Colorado has 30 minutes ment, the time for the Ford amend-when the utility building the power. remaining.
ment is actually controlled by the Sen-plant bears responsibility for assuring Mr. IIART. Mr. President, there ap-ator from Kentucky.
the quality of construction. In particu-parently is some desire on the part of Mr. FORD. Mr. President. I yield lar, the amendment directs the NRC a number of Senators to speak under such time as the distinguished Senator to study alternate concepts for im. time on the IS!!. The Senator from from Colorado might need of my 30 proving quality assurance and quality Pennsylvania first requested time, and minutes.
__ control in the construction of power. I am prepared to yield time to him. I
~
l
\\
s-<-
/
198 [
}[
M iSS3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2493 leally 4 for
..y' 888d'f if the ' Senator from Idaho the opportunity for a hearing, assures nia has move ahead with an innovative e
tility
- paid teu me how much time he is re-that plant operations will not be dis-plan. But any successful effort is going hird.
j goes yMMS. About 5 minutes I serious safety question involved.
the Federal Government, and is going rupted in those cases where there is no to require substantial participation by Ver.
- y. 3 minutes might do tt.
'*".,, ART, I yield not to exceed 5 I bellese that these budgetary and to require substantial participation H
reform measures serve as an impor-and assistance by the Nuclear Regula.
Pord
[Ilot ptes to the Senator from Idaho.
tant first step in improving the effi-tory Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ciency and effectiveness of the nuclear As we consider this bill, I think Con-
- Fe i
n to
- senator from Idaho is recognized.
regulatory process in this country, and gress should attend to the problem at gr. SYMMS. Mr. President, I wish I strongly support passage of the bill.
rnd-to thank my good friend from Colora-Mr. President, I yield back the re-TMI and work in a unified way to pro-mn do for yielding me the 5 minutes.
mainder of my time.
vide a national solution to that prcb-and Iem because it is realistically a nation-tbil.
I thank him and the distingu!shed Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. al problem and one which has to be llot cbsinnan of the committee, the S.na-The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who tor from Wyoming, for their efforts to yields time?
solved if there is to be further develop-ess bring this bill to the full Senate.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 5 ment of nuclear energy in the United Lke the Mr. President, I am in' support of minutes to the Senator from Pennsyl-States.
th's bill.
ikF vania-There must be appropriate assur.
There are a number of significant The PRI: SIDING OFFICER. The ances'of safety, there must be appro-ess fal provisions in the bill, as reported by Senator from Pennsylvania is recog* priate assurances that in the event of the Environment and Public Works nized for 5 minutes, accident there will be a proper re.
LC-Committee that I would like to men-sponse to see t it that those in the rnarr wuz zsuum tion briefly. I believe that these provi.
sfons will have a positive impact in Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distin-area are proper y cared for and prop-nk erly taken care f.
terms of enhancing safety, and at the guished Senator from Colorado for
'o-yielding me this time.
I thank the Senator from Colorado n-same time should result in real im-Mr. President, in the consideration for yielding the time. Mr. President. I
.r.
provement, in regulatory efficiency in of this bill I believe that a substantial yield the floor.
d-the nuclear powerplant licensing proc-analysis is required of the pending mme m m ess.
First, the bill designates funding for problems of Three Mlle Island in the Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send ff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as an arnendment to the desk and ask for ir several NRC safety prcgrams. These g
(
include reactor safety research work they relate to the bioader national as-its immediate consideration.
on fast breeder reacters, including sup-pects of the development of nuclear The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 3
i energy.
clerk wn! report.
e 5
port for the licensing of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor: safety research The incident at TMI on March 29, The legislative clerk read as follows:
1979, has adversely affected Pennsyl.
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Sme-i and licensing review work on high-vania in at least two ways: First, w o proposes an unprinted amendment 5
temperature, gas-cooled reactors; and higher electric rates for both home numbered 840.
t research work related to the loss-of-fluid test facility. This facility, in par-and industry; and, second, an uness!.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask i
f ticular, Mr. President, has provided ness about the safety of citizens living unanimous consent that further read-extremely useful information to the near nuclear generating plants.
Ing of the amendment be dispensed g
Comminion, the nuclear industry, and This has resulted in a deprt ul with.
the public on the validity of the NRC's economy for the TMI area and stimu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
lated an active concern about safety out objection, it is so ordered.
requirements for nuclear reactor by groups of citizens.
(
emergency core cooling systems, and The amendment is as follows:
l the bill would permit this valuable Beyond the immediate impact of On page 6. after line 13. add a new section j
work to go forward over the next 2 Three Mile Island on the Common? 105 to read as fouows-wealth of Pennsylvania, the Three "Sec.105. Funds authorized to be appro-years.
I Second, the bill grants to the Com-Mile Island incident has had, I sug. priated under this Act shall be used by the I
mission the authority to issue interim gest, a serious effect on the develop. commission to expedite the estabushment ment of nuclear energy around the g[, $F 8
]pbnt
- 88
[
powerplants through 1983. I believe I believe it is imperative that an im-
,ccom,,,y,,, m,,3,oo,of,,,
,,y ro* EI b,gu a operating IICenses for new nuclear Nation.
a
,de-d
, e n,,,,.
.g this provision is particularly essential mediate answer be found for the prob-plication should be expedited to the maxi.
to insure that there will not be unnec-essary delays in the operation of new lems at TMI if there is to be any real-mum extent practicable and shall precede.
plants that are unrelated to signif! cant istic possibility of developing nuclear unless the Commission deeldes otherwise, the issuance of other regulations contem.
energy in this Nation.
plated by the commission that could affect safety issues. Even though there has An accident such as that at TMI engineered safety features, siting require-been considerable fluctuation in the could have happened anywhere, and it ments, or emergency p;anning.".
projected delays for these plants, the potential for costly and unnecessary is only a matter of happenstance that Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am delays remains a possibility until the it occurred in Pennsylvania. Had the offering this amendment which, if present licensing backlog is removed. nuclear industry anticipated such a adopted, will require the NRC to move The bill, as reported by the commit-problem I think there would have forward expeditiously with the estab.
tee, eliminates this potential in a re-been a widespread movement to create lishment of a safety goal for nuclear l
sponsible manner that assures the con-owning nuclear plants, contrib9 ting a body adopted a similar provision as an insurance fund with companics reactor regulation. Last year, this tinued protection of the public health and safety.
small amount of money based on an part of the NRC authorization bill for Third, the bill would remove a re-insurance principle so that in the fiscal year 1981. Unfortunately, that quirement for adsance hearings on event of such an accident there would provision was not enacted due to the certain power reactor license amend-have been a fund to pay for cleanup.
failure of the IIouse to act on that leg-That, unfortunately, was not done in Islation.
{
ments that could serte as a source of advance. Once the accident occurred it As you know, Mr. President, an un-costly delay and disruption of plant is obviously difficult to get the indus-precedented number of new regu operation. This provision allows those try to do retroactively what would t
i license amendments that the Commis-have been much easier to do prospec. requirements for nuclear powerplants sion determines do not involve signifi-Lively.
has resulted from the accident at Three Mlle Island. Included among cant safety issues to be put into effect Senator IIGNt and I and others have the majo* regulatory initiatives that i
before any requested hearing is held. introduced legislation in Congress, and the Commission has undertake Again, this provision, while preserving Governor Thornburgh of Pennsylva. rules to alter siting requiremen I
e k
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March if,1882 T
h S 2494 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask k
Mr. HART. Mr. Presid:nt, along cxpand th? current design
- ues f r with Sen; tor Statrson, in th3 past I unanimous consent that further read-nuclear reactrrs, and change.;n:rgen-have supported th3 idea of a sahty ing of th3 amendment be dispensed I
+
strongly support the NRC*t ;' forts to goal which this amendment is direced with.
g ey planning requirements 'Vhile I The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-p upgrade these and other safety re-toward.
To some extent that goal will pro-out objection, it is so ordered.
quirements. I am concerned that there vide a benchmark for NRC safety reg-The amendment is as follows:
13 a persistent lack of criteria and ob-I jectives to provide a coherency and di-ulations and lead to a consistent regu-On page 12. after Itne 19. Insert a new sec-l rection to the definition of new regula-latory scheme.
tion to read as follows:
At the same time, perhaps I am not Src.. tal The Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
tory requirements and of their appll-as sanguine as the Senator from Wyo-as amended. is amended by adding a new cation to existing and future nuclear ming about how useful such a goal will section 237 to read as follows:
powerplants, "Sec. 23*f. Resident Inspectors.-
To assure reasonable protection of be for two reasons: First, it is extreme.
- a. Notwithstanding any regulations pro-the health and safety of the pubile, ly difficut to quantify subjective as. mulgated by the President pursuant to Sec-the quality of the structures, systems, sessments of comparative risks, and to and components of nuclear power-determine how much risk we consider t!jons or$t e fu ava'ilab eiEtE[u$1I t
,t plants must be designed, engineered, acceptable; and, second, even if the at Regulatory Commission for administra-built, and operated in order to achieve NRC can develop a quantified safety tive expenses are available. under such regu-the desired degree of performance.
goal, it is equally difficult to apply lations as the Commission may prexrtbe We have this absence of a safety that goal in specifle regulatory dect-and to the extent considered necessary and f
goal, and I think that inhibits and sions. How will some general assess-appropriate, for reimbursement of all or a
may preclude addressing the threshold ment of acceptable risk, even in nu-part of the following expenses of a resident inspector of the Commission, relocating be-f question of whether a particular new merical terms, help the NRC to decide tween two NRC duty stations. for whom the requirement is necessary to achieve whether to requre, for example, addi-P l
the desired level of safety and such de-tional warning strens for an emergen-ion $((r Ntton io i
i 1
terminations must be made on a case-cy plan, additional training for a Title 5. U 8.C.-(t) Points or morstage loan by-case basis without clear and con-powerplant operator of an additional ortgination fees charged by mortgage tender sistent guidance from the Commission few inches of concrete in a contain-to resident inspector on sale or purcha.se of on the standards that should be ap-ment wall? The simple answer to that a residence, not to exceed the lessor of 88000 or 8 percent of the sale price of the plied and we need to correct that, question, Mr. President, is I just do residence (a points); (2) Interest on, and i
Succinctly then, Mr. President, the not know.
other expenses
- f. a " bridge" or swing" a
best approach toward identifying the I do think a safety goal will gerve as I desired level of safety for nuclear a useful vehicle for debating "Ifow safe by 'e Men inspe tor on c rt tl power reactors !s the estabilshment of is safe enough," the chron!c nuclear owned property to provide an equity ad-a " safety goal." Indeed. the NRC's power issue. Moreover it will at least vance to purchase a second property prior Lessons Learned Task Force, in its provide a general objective that we to the sale ot the first property; <3) The cost 4
report following the accident at Three hope NRC's safety regulations will of an owner's title insurance polley paid for l
6 by the resident inspector on a residence pur-f Mlle Island, emphasized the, impor-achieve.
chased by him.
4 i
Lance of a safety goal in achieving a In spite of those reservations. Mr.
- b. The Commission is authorized to enter
]
President, I endorse and support the into contracts for the provision of relocation g
balanced regulatory perspective, a view echoed by the Kemeny and Rogo-amendment of the Senator from Wyo-semces to assist emNoyee rnMent We-1
- vin reports as well. As recently as Sep-ming and I urge its passage [CER. Who genses of t[a et a$d t NrtaIlon nde$
i tember of last year, the Commission's The PRESIDING OFF section 572can of Title 5. of the United
- I Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe, yields time?
states Code, in relocating betseen duty sta-guards, tn commenting on the stafra Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator tions, including assistins in the sale of em-proposed rule on reactor site criteria, and yield back the remainder of my ployees' residences.
reiterated its support for establish. time on the amendment.
- c. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec-ment of a safety goal when it stated The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does tion 6384 of Title 31. the Nuclear llegula-that:
the Senator from Colorado also yield t ry C mmission may authorize the Execu.
Mr. IIART I yield back the remain- $c$N en veh\\cles The decision on reactor site criteria back his time?
un r a l
$"jd "$D* jg'gy"y" ]C',0f jtjf[ der of my time.
tocated at resident inspection offices for l
J ciently specule design requirements for nu-The PRESIDING OFFICER. All transportation of resident inspectors be-clear powerplants.
time having been yielded back the (seen their domiciles and official duty sta.
i t,ransportation is unavail question is on agreeing to the amend.
t1,o,r.s w n pu tio Mr.
sident, t at I ropo men.
(b) Of the amounts authorized to be ap-ing that NRC move forward swiftly The amendment (UP No. 840) was propriated by this Act, the Commission msy with the establishment of a safety agreed to.
use up to $1.162.000 in fiscal year 1982 and goal. The amendment I offer today Mr. SIMPSON. M r. President. I up to st.129.000 in fiscal year 1983 pursuant provides that, unless the Commission move to reconsider the vote by which to the authority contained in subsection (a) should decide otherwise, the develop-the amendment was agreed to.
of this section, ment and promulgation of a safety Mr. IIART. I move to lay that Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. one of goal should precede other major ru!. motion on the table.
the principal recommendations that making activities related to engineered The motion to lay on the table was each of the major investigations into safety features, siting requirements or agreed to.
the accident at Three Mlle Island was emergency planning. By placing high that the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-cc ammt so. set priority on the ertablishment of a Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I send sion should expand its resident inspec-safety goal and methods for its appli.
cation. the NRC will then have laid another amendment to the desk and tor program. That was a consistently I
the essential groundwork for the adop. ask for its immediate consideration.
threaded through observation. The tion of requirements related to engl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Congress responded by authorizing neered safety features. siting. and clerk will report the amendment, and appropriating funds for expanding The assistant legislative clerk read this vital link in the Commission's im-emergency planning.
proved safety program. The resident I urge the support of the amend. as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. inspector provides a continuing Com-Mr. IIART addressed the Chair.
StursoM for himself and Mr. IIAnt. mission presence onsite at nuclesr ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposes an unprinted amendment power reactors. These inspectors are f
well versed in their sites' chatacterts-Senator from Colorado.
numbered 841.
l i
f s.
4
.~
g Mamh141982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 2495 tics, nticlear technology, and the 11 their homes and duty stations. The resumes consideration of the pending censee's procedures and personnel. amendment also places a cap on these business, which is S.1207, but not They monitor day.to-day actWities and reimbursements to assure they will prior to Monday, March 29.
licensee performance and they are not exceed $1,162.000 in fiscal year I further ask unanimous consent available to respond quickly to events 1982, and $1,129.000 in fiscal year that this agreement be subject to the
}~
' safety, both onsite and in the local ;So that is the purpose of the amend. vitiated by the minority leader at any which could affect public health and 1983.
minority leader's approval and may be 2
area The Commission's goalis to have ment. Throughout our entire delibera-time prior to the close of business to E
a resident inspector at each operating tions, since I have been on this com-morrow.
7 power reactor and each reactor under mittee and subcommittee, both as The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is b
construction by the end of fiscal year ranking minority member and as there objection? Without objection it 1982.
chairman, the resident inspector is so ordered.
The Commission insures impartiality became the single most important in.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President I have of these inspectors; first, by relocating spector at recreating and creating con-no further amendments to this bill each inspector every 3 to 5 years and, fidence in nuclear power generation.
today. We shall return to its consider-second, by restricting certain activities I urge support of this amendment ation as I have just suggested, when of the inspector and the inspector's that would insure that the Commis-we shall take up two other amend.
family to avoid even the appearance of sion will fully implement this vital ments under the previous time agree-a conflict of interest. These restrictive safety and health program.
ment, also, measures include the prohibition of Mr. IIART. Mr. President I support I appreciate the patience and coop-family members from working for the and cosponsor the amendment by the eration of, the ranking minority licensee or the !!censee's contractors, Senator from Wyoming. The resident member of the subcommittee (Mr.
which are often the principal employ-inspector's program is necessary to im-HART).
ers in the area, and the prohibition of prove the protection of public health Mr. President, at this time I believe other forms of contact with licensee or and safety, as outlined by the Senator we are able to return to the considera-licensee contractor employees.
from Wyoming. This provision re-tion of other business.
As a result of these requirements, as moves' some of the difficulty in at-The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-well as of NRC's difficulty in compet-tracting resident inspectors.
out objection, S.1207 will be set aside.
Ing with private industry to provide The NRC can meet its goal of having salary, incentives, and other benefits, a resident inspector at every operating the Commhion is e;tperiencing diffi. plant by the end of the fiscal year.
REGULATORY REFORM l
culty in recruiting and retaining the This is a worthwhile and important The PRESIDING OFFICER. The highly trained and competent individ. amendment. I urge its adoptiorn I clerk will state the pending business.
,uals needed to make the resident in yield back the remainder of my time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
spector program effective. Thus, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does A bill (S.10801 to amend the Admmistra-i Commfuion may not be able to meet the Senator from Wyoming also yield tive Procedure Act to require Feders) anten.
(
Its goal of having an inspector at each back his time?
cles to analyze the effects of ruks to im-operating power reactor and at each Mr. SIMPSON I do yield back my prove their effectiveness and to decrease
=
g reactor under construction by the end time on that amendment, Mr. Presi, their compliance costx to provide for a peri-of fiscal year 1982.
dent.
odic review of regulations. and for other One major obstacle in meeting this The PRESIDING OFFICER. All purposes.
1 objective is the financial cost involved time having been yielded back, the The Senate resumed consideration i
in relocating, especially in light of question is on agreeing to the amend. of the bill.
very tight housing and financial mar-ment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the eco.
}
kets. While some of these costs are re-The amendment (UP No. 841) was nomic recovery program as originally imbursable under current government agreed to.
proposed by President Reagan consist-statutes and regulations, a significant Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider ed of four major goals: tax reduction:
I share must still be borne by the relo-the vote by which the amendment was control of Government spending; a cating inspector. A second problem agreed to.
consistent monetary policy; and reduc.
area involves the costs of commuting Mr. HART. I move to lay that tion in the burden of Government reg.
between the resident inspector's resi. motion on the table.
ulation. We have made and continue 5
i dence and the nuclear reactor site.
The motion to lay on the table was to make great strides in all of these i
The resident f. pector's commuting agreed to.
areas. The Economic Recovery Tax l
costs present a t. !que problem con-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I sug. Act of 1981, reductions in the growth l
Verse to those of. *.her Federal em-gest the absence of a quorum.
rate of Federal spending, and more playees because of several factors:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How stabilized growth in the money supply First, the remoteness if many nuclear does the Senator wish the time for through the annual monetary targets sites; second, the frequ 'nt unavailabili this quorum call to be charged?
set by the Federal Reserve Board all i
ity of public transporta;'on: and third.
Mr. HART Mr. President. I ask are steps toward the goals mandated t
one of the restrictions placed on the unanimous consent that the time for by the American people.
)
inspector, which prohibit carpooling the quorum call not be charged Today we continue our progress with f
with licensee employees or using 11-against either side.
consideration of the Regulatory f
censee subsidized transportation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With. Reform Act, S.1080. While this legis-t It is to these two areas of concern-out objection. It is so ordered.
lation is not intended to be a compre.
3 relocation costs and commuting The clerk will call the roll.
hensive reform of the entire regula.
3 costs-that the amendment is directed.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the tory process. It focuses in depth on The amendment, if adopted, would au. roll.
the procedures for rulemaking and for thorize the Commission to first, reim-Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask judicial review of agency actions. The burse resident inspectors for mortgage unanimous consent that the order for provisions of S.1080 are a positive step j
loan origination fees, owner's title in-the quorum call be rescinded.
in alleviating one of the greatest con.
e g
surance, and " Bridge" loan expenses The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. cerns of American citizens in all walks g
incurred in relocating between duty CocnRAN). Without objection, it is so of life-unnecessary and costly Gov-1 stations; second, contract with a "relo-ordered.
ernment regulations. Too of ten these it cating service" to assist resident in-Mr. SIMPSON. At this point, Mr. regulations have been propounded 1
spectors in relocating between duty President I ask unanimous consent without appropriate consultation with tr stations; and third, provide resident in. that an amendment by the Senator those affected and without responsible
.e spetors with government transporta-from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hzinz) be in analysis by the agencies involved. The tim for commuting purposes between order to be offered when the Senate reguhtory analysis procedures of the n.
i a
I L
AMI4 PDk iM ?I~k1 i.R.2330
, mt Rinctgsttenth Eon itss of the tinited states of Simtrica AT Tile SECOND $ESSION Degun and held at she City of Washington on Standny, the cuenty.fifth day ofJanuar,s, one thousand nine hundred and riehrs twa 9n Sct Te sotherue a pations to the Nuclear Regulaw) Comeniwon in accordance with sectan et the Atemw Energy Act er 1%4. as arrended and netten 303 of the Energy Reorgarusauen Act el 1974, as amended, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representathes of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled.
AtJTHOaIZATION OF APPaOPalATIONS SecTION 1. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the provi-aions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S C. 2017) and section 305 cf the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S C.
5875), for the Gscal years 1982 and 1983 to remain available until expended. 3485,200,000 for fiscal year 1952 arid $513,100,000 for fiscal year 1983 to be allocated as follows:
(1) Not more than 880,700,000 for fineal year 1962 and
$17,000,000 for fiscal year 1963 may be used for " Nuclear Reae.
tor Regulation", of which an amount not to exceed $1,tio0,000 is authorized each such Gscal year to be used to accelerate the effort in gas-cooled thermal reactor preapplication review, and an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 is authorized each such fiscal year to be used for licensing review work for a fast breeder reactor plant project. In the event of a termination of such breeder reactor project, any unused amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph for licensing review work for such project may be used only for safety technology activities (2) Not more than 162,900,000 for fiscal year 1952 and
$69EO,000 for fiscal year 1983 may be used for ' Inspection and Enforcement' t3) Not more than $42.000,000 for fiscal par 1982 and
$47.059,000 for fiscal year 1983 may be used for " Nuclear Mate.
rial Safety and Safeguards (4) Not more than $240,300,000 for fiscal year 1%2 and
$257,195,000 for Gscal year 1963 may be used for " Nuclear Regulatory Research",of which-(A) an amount not to exceed $3.500,000 for fiscal year 1982 and $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1983 is authorized to be used to accelerate the effort in gas <ooled thermal reactor safety research; e
IBi en amount not to exceed $1SJM000 is authorized each such fiscal year to be used for fast breeder reactor safety research; and C an amount not to exceed $37,000.000 is authorized for such two fiscal year period to be used for the Lowof-Fluid Test Facility research program-In the event of a termination of the fast breeder reactor plant project, any unused amount appropriated purs.aant to this para.
~
.. h
- 11. R. 2330-2 grap.h for fast breeder reactor safety research may be used generally for " Nuclear Regulatory Research"a (5 Not more than $21,900,000 for fiscal year 1982 and
$20,197,800 for fiscal year 1983 may be used for " Program Technical Support".
(Ci Not more than $37,400.000 for Oscal 3 ear 1952 and
$41,797,000 for fiscal year 1983 may be used for " Program Direction and Administration".
(b) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use not more than 1 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsec-tion ta*4) to esercise its authority under section 31 a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954142 U.S C. 2051 an to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with universities pursuant to such section.
Grants made by the Commission shall be made in accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (41 U.S C. 501 et seq.I and other applicable law. In making such grants and entering into such cooperative agreements, the Commission shall endeavor to provide appropriate opportunities for universities in which the student body has historically been predominately comprised of minority groups.
(c) Any amount appropriated for a fiscal year to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to any paragraph of subsection tal for purposes of the program ofnce referred to in such paragraph, or any activity that is within such program office and is speciGed in such paragraph, may be reallocated by the Commission for use in a program ofGee referred to in any other paragraph of such subsec-tion, or for use in any other activity within a program office, except that the amount available from appropriations for such fiscal year for use in any program office or speciGed actnity may not, as a result of reallocations made under this subsection, be increased or reduced by more than $~,00,000 unless-(1) a period of 30 calendar days sencluding any day in which either 11ouse of Congress is not in session because of an adjourn.
ment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain or an adjournment sine diel passes after the receipt, by the Commit-tee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ir.terior and Insular Affairs of the llouse of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, of notice submitted by the Commission containing a full and com-plete statement of the reallocation proposed to be made and the facts and circumstances rebed upon in suppvrt of such proposed reallecation, or 124 each such committee, befvre the esp.sation of such perN, transmits to the Commisnon a written notincation that such committee does not object to such proposed reallocation.
At*THORITY TO RET A N cERTAIN AMOUNTS ar.CElb ED Sac ' 2 Moneys received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the cooperative nuclear research program and the material acceu authorization program may be retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with such programs, notwithstanding the proustons of section 3617 of the Revised Statutes tJ1 U S C. 4941, and shall remain available until espea 4d
==
0
H. R.2::30-3 AUTHORIT TO TRANsFEP CERT 4tN AstOUNTs TO OTHER AGENCIES SEC. 3. From amounts apprepriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 1% the Corpmission may transfer to other agencies of the Federal Gosernment sums for salaries and expenses for the performance by such agencies of activities for which such appropriations of the Commission are made. Any sums so transferre.d may be merged wi;h the appropriation of the agency to which such sums are transferred.
LIMITATION ON srENDING AUTHORITY SEC. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no authority to make payments under this Act shall be effective except to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acta.
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE IJCENSEs IN ABSENCE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS SEC. 5. Of the amounta authorized to be appropriated under section 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission maybse such sums as may be necessary, in the absence of a State or local emergency preparedness plan which has been approved by the Federal Emer.
gency Management Agency, to issue an operating license (including a temporary operating license under section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by section 11 of this Act) for a nuclear power reactor, if it determines that there exists a State, local, or utility plan which provides reasonable assurance that pubhc health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facihty concerned.
NUCLI AR SAFETY GOAta SEC. 6 Funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to expedite the establishment of safety goals for nuclear reactor regulation. The development of such safety goals, and any accompanying methodolo-gies for the application of such safety goals, should be expedited to the maximum extent practicable to permit establishment of a safety goal by the Commission not later than December 31,1982.
thSS-OF-FLUID Test FACILtTV SEc. 7. Of the amounts authorized to be used for the Imss-of-Fluid Test Facility in accordance with section 1(n41 for fiscal years 1992 and 1983, the Commission shall provide funding through centra:t with the organization respansible for the Lots cf Fluid Te:t ;per-ations for a detailed technical review and analysis of research results obtained from the less-of. Fluid Test Facility research pro-gram. The contract shall provide funding for not more than twenty man-years in each of fiscal years IE and 1983 to conduct the technical review and analysis.
NUCLEAR DATA LINK SEC. 8. (a) Of the amounts authorized to be apprcpriated under this Act fcr the fiscal years 19N and IW3. not more than $200,000 is authorized to be used by the Nuclear lle ;ulatory Commission for-n I
T-
- 11. R. 2330-4 flL the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or otherwise) and installation of equipment to be used for the Wmall test proto-type nuclear data link" program or for any other program for the collection and transmission to the Commission of data from -
licensed nuclear reactors during abnormal conditions at such reactors; and (2) the conduct of a full and complete study and analysis of-(At the appropriate role of the Commission during abnormal conditions at a nuclear reactor hcensed by the Commission; (B) the information which should be available to the Commission to enable the Commission to fulfill such role and to carry out other related functions; (C) various alternative means of assuring that such infor-mation is available to the Commission in a timely manner; and tD) any changes in existing Commission authority neces-sary to enhance the Commission response to abnormal conditions at a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission.
The small test prototype referred to in paragraph (1) may be used by the Commission in carrying out the study and analysis under para-graph (2L Such anal ' shall include a cost-benefit analysis of each alternative examin under subparagraph (C).
(bill Upon completion of the study and analysis required under subsection (alt 21, the Commission shall submit to Congress a detailed report setting forth the results of such study and analysis.
(2)The Commission may not take any action with respect to any alternative described in subsection (as2xC), unless a period of 60 caler.dar days tercluding any day in which either liouse of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain or an adjournment sine die) passes after the receipt, by the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Com-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the flouse of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, of notice submitted by the Commission contaming a full and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action.
INTEa!M CONsotJDAtlON OF OFFICES Szc.1 tal Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to paragraph 6 of section 11 1, such sums as may be necessary shall be available for intenm conschdation of Nuclear Regulatory Com-missa.n headquarters staff offcet (b) No amount authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used, in connection with the intenm consolidation of Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion offices to relocate the offices c,f members of the Commission outside the District of Columbia.
THaEE htfLE ISLAND Sce.10. tat No part of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used to provide assistance to the General Public Utilities Corporation for purposes of the decontamination, cleanup, repair, or rehabihtation of facihties at Three Mile Island Unit 2 0
l I
H. R.2330-5 (b) The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not relate to the responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for moni-toring or inspection of the decontamination, cleanup,' repair, or i
rehaoifitation activities at Three%Ie Island and such prohibition shall not apply to the use of funds by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to carry out regulatory functions of the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with respect to the facilities at Three Mile Island.
(c) The Nuclear latory Commission shall include in its annual report to the ngress under section 307(c) of the Energy t
l
- Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S C. 5877tcH as a separate cha ter a description of the collaborative efforta undertaken, or p to be undertaken, by the Commission and the Department o Energy l
with respect to the decontamination, cleanup, repair, or rehabilita-tion of facilities at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
(d) No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be l
used by the Commission to approve any willful release of " accident.
l senerated water", as defined by the Commission in NUREG-0683 i
I" Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement" p.1-23),
r I
from Three Mile Island Unit 2 into the Susquehanna River or its watershed.
l TassponAaY OrsaAMNO UCussa Ssc.11. Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S C.
2242)la amended to read as follows:
l
" Sac,192.TsuroaAar OrsmAUNG btCDss.-
t
s. In any proceeding upon an application for an operating license l
for a utilization facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b. of this Act,in which a hearing is otherwise required pursuant to section 189 a, the applicant may petition the Commission for a ternporary operating license for such facility authorizing fuel load-ing, testing, and operation at a specific power level to be determined by the Commission. pending final action by the Commission on the application. The initial petition for a temporary rating license for each such facility and any temporary operati license issued for such facihty based upon the initial petition, sha 1 be limited to power levels not to escoed 5 percent of rated full thermal power.
Following issuance by the Commission of the temporary operating license for each such facihty, the licensee may file petitions with the Commission to amend the license to allow facihty operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be determined by the Commission, exceeding 5 percent of rated full thermal power. The initial petition for a temporary cperating license for each such facility may be filed at any time after the filing of. fit the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards required by section 182 b.: C, the filing of the initial Safety C.aluation Report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's first supplement to the report prepared in response to the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for the facility;(3) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
staffs final detailed statement on the environmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to section 102t2sC) of the National Envi-l ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (12 U.S C. 4322:C0; and (4) a State.
local, or utility emergency preparedness plan for the facihty. Pete-l tions for the issuance of a temporary operatmg license, or for an l
amendment to such a license allowing operation at a specifie power level greater than that authorized in the initial temporary operating i
i l
l e
I l
H.R 2330-6 license,shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the specific facts upon which the petitiolar relies to justify issuance of the temporary operating license or the amendment i
thereto. The Commission shall publish notice of each such petition in the Federal Rep' ster and in such trade or news publications as the Commission seems appropriate to give reasonable notice to persons who might have a potential interest in the grant of such temporary operating license or amendment thereto. Any person may file affidavits or statements in support of, or in opposition to, the petition within thirty days after the publication of such notice in the Federal Register.
"b. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the C--an may issue a temporary operating license, or amend the license to authorize temporary operation at each specific power level greater than that authorized in the initial temporary operating license, as determined by the Commission, upon finding that-
"(1) in all respects other than the conduct or completion of l
required bearing, the requirements oflaw are met; anI(2)in accordance with such requirements, there is reason-able assurance that operation of the facility during the period of the temporary operating license in accordance with its terms and conditions will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environment during the pened of temporary operation; and
"(3) denial of such temporary operating license will result in delay between the date on which construction of the facility is sufficiently completed, in the judgment of the Commission,13 permit issuance of the temporary operating license, and the date when such facility would otherwise receive a final operat-t ing license pursuant to this Act.
l The temporary operating heense shall become effective upon issu-ance and shall contain such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary, including the duration of the license and any provision for the extension thereof. Any final order authorizing the issuance or amendment of any temporary operating license pursu-ant to this section shall recite with specificity the facts and reasons
+
justifying the findings under this subsection, and shall be transmit-ted upon such issuance to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The final order of the Commission with respect to the issuance or amendment of a temporary operating license shall be States Code. icial review pursuant to chapter 158 of title 28, United subiret to tudThe requirements of section 183 a. of this Act with respect to the issuance or amendment of facility licenses shall not apply to the issuance or amendment of a temporary operating license under this section.
"c. Any hearing on the application for the final operating license for a facility required pursuant to section 189 s. shall be concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall suspend the temporary operating license if it finds that the applicant is not prosecuting the application for the final operating beense with due diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license under subsec-tion b of this rection shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to raise any issue in a hearing required pursuant to section 189 a ; and failure to assert any ground for denial or hmitation of a
~
m
H. R. 2330-7 temporary operating license shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the issuance of a subsequent final operat.
ing license. Any party to a hearing required pursuant to section 189
- a. on the final operating license.for a facility for which.a temporary operating hcense has been issued under subsection b., and any member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting such hearing, shall promptly notify the Commission of any information indicating that the terms and conditions of the temporary operating license are not being met, or that such terms and conditions are nr4 sufficient to comply with the provisions of paragraph (2) of subsection b.
"d. The Commission is authorized and directed to adopt such administrative remedies as the Commission deems appropriate to minimize the need for issuance of temporary operstmg licenses pursuant to this sectian.
"e. The authority to issue new temporary operating licenses under this section shall expire on December 31,1983.".
oPEaATINO IJCENsE AMENDMENT HEARINGS Sec.12. (a) Section 119 a. of the Atomic Enargy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239(a))is amended-(1) by inserting "(1)" after the subsection designation; and (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph-
"(2xA) The Commission may issue and make immediately effec-tive any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person Such amendment may be issued and made immediately effective in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing. In determining under this section whether such amendment involves no significant hasards consideration, the Commission shall consult with the State in which the facility involved is located. In all other respects such amendment shall meet the requirements of this Act.
- 1B) The Commission shall periodically (but not less frequently than once every thirty days) publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, as provided in subparagraph (Al.
Each such notice shall include all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, since the date of publication of the last such periodic notice Such notice shall, with respect to each amendment or pro-posed amendment ti) identify the facility involved; and (iit provide a brief description of such amendment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to delay the effective date of any amendment.
"(C)The Commission shall, during the ninety-day period following the effective date of this paragraph, promulgate regulations estab-lishing til standards for determining whether any amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration; tiil criteria for providing or in emergency situations, dispensmg with prior notice and reasonsbe oppcrtunity for public comment on any su:h determination, which criteria shall take into account the exigency of the need for the amendment involved; and (iiin proce-dures for consultation on any such determination with the State in which the facility involved is located ".
(b) The authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the provisions of the amendment made by subsection fal, to issue and to make immediately effective any amendment to an operating 4
~
e
H. R. 2330-8 license shall take effect upon the promulgation by the Commission of the regulations require.d,in such provisions.
QUAtJTY ASSUaANCr.
Ssc.13. (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:an is authorized and directed to implement and accelerate the resident inspector pro-gram so as to assure the assignment of at least one resident inspec-tor by the end of fiscal year 1982 at each site at which a commercial nuclear powerplant is under construction and construction is more than 15 percent complete. At each such site at which construction is not more than 15 percent complete, the Commission shall provide that such inspection personnel as the Commission deems appropri-ate shall be physically present at the site at such times following issuance of the construction judgment of the Commission. permit as may be necessary in the (b)The Commission shall conduct a study of esisting and alterna-tive programs for improving quality assurance and quality control in the construction of commercial nuclear powerplants. In conduct-the study, the Commia= ion shall obtain the comments of the licensees of nuclear powerNants, the Advisory Committee on r Safeguards, and organ 12 tions comprised of professionals having expertise in appropnate fields. 'Ihe study shall include an analysisof thefollowmg:
(1) providing a bazis for quality assurance and quality control, inspection, and enformment actions through the adoption of an approach which is more prescriptive than that currently in practice for defining principal architectural and engmeering enteria for the construction of commercial nuclear powerplants; (2) conditioning the issuance of construction permits for com-mercial nuclear powerplanta on a demonstration by the licensee that the licensee is capable of independently managing the effective performance of all quality assurance and quality con-trol respon. ibilities for the powerplant; (3) evaluations, inspections, or audits of commercial nuclear powerplant construction by organizaticas comprised of profes-sionals having expertise in appropriate fields which evaluations, inspections, or audits are more effective than those under cur-rent practice; (4) improvement of the Commissicn's organization, methods, and programs for quality assurance development, review, and inspection; and (5) conditioning the issuance of construction permits for com-mercial nuclear powerptrats o7 the permi'. tee entering luo contracts or other arrangements with an independent inspector to audit the quality assurance program to venfy quality assur-ance performance.
For purposen of paragraph (5), the term " independent inspector" means a person or other entity having no responsibility for the design or construction of the plant involved. The study shall also include an analysis of quality assurance and quality control pro-grams at representative sites at which such programs are operating satisfactorily and an assessment of the reasons therefor.
(c)For purposes of-(1) determining the best means c,f assuring that commercial nuclear powerplants are constructed in accordance with the
~
O
- 11. R. 2330-9 applicable safety requirements in effect pursuant to the Atomic
- Energy Act of1954;and
- 82) assessing the feasibility and ben,efits of,the various means listed in subsection (bt the Commission shall undertake a pilot program to review and evaluate programs that include one or more of the alternative concepta identified in subsection (b) for the purposes of assessing the feasibihty and benefits of their implementation. The pilot program shall include programs that use independent inspectors for auditing quality assurance responsibilities of the licensee for the construction of commercial nuclear powerplanta, as described in paragraph (5) of subsection (b). The pilot program sha!! include at least three sites at which commercial nuclear powerplants are under construction. The Commission shall select at least one site at w hich quality assurance and quahty control programs have operated satisfactorily,h major and at least two sites with remedial programs underway at whic construction, quality assurance, or quality control deficiencies (or any combination thereon have been identified in the past. The Commission may require any changes in existing quality assurance and quality control organisations and relationships that may be necessary at the selected sites to implement the pilot program.
(di Not later than fifteen months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete the study required under subsection (b) and submit to the United States Senate and House of Representatives a report setting forth the resulta of the study. The report shall include a brief summary of the information received from the public and from other persons referred to in subsection (b) and a statement of the Commission's response to the significant xmments received. The report shall also set forth an analysis of the results of the pilot program required under subsection (c). The report shall be accompanied by the recommendations of the Commission, including any legislative recommendations, and a de-scription of any administrative acticns that the Commission has undertaken or intends to undertake, for improving quahty assur.
ance and quality control programs that are appheable durmg the construction of nuclear pomerplants.
LIMITATION oN tiss oF SPECIAL NUCt.EAa MATERIAL Soc.14. Section 57 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 H2 U.S C.
2077) is amended by adding at the end thereof the fo!!owing new subsection:
"e. Special nuclear material, as def;ned in section 11 produced in facilities beensed ur. der section 10:1 or 108 rnay not be transfer ~d.
reprocessed, used, or otherwise made available by any instrumental-ity of the United States or any other person for nuclear explosise purposes?
RrstDENT INsrECToRs SEC.15. Of the amounts authorized to be oppropriated under section 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall use such sums as may be necessary to conduct a study of the financial hardships e
incurred by resident inspectors as a result ofill regulations of the Commission requiring resident inspectors to relocate periodically from one duty station to another; and @ the requirements of the Commission respecting the domicde of resident inspectors and
~
e
H. R. 2330-10 respecting travel hetween their domicile amt duty station in such mannbrss to avoid the appearance of a conflict cfinterest. Not later than 90 days after.the date of the ensetment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the Congre=s a report setting forth the findings of the Commission as a result of such study, together with a legislative proposal (mcluding any supporting data or informations relating to any assistance for resident inspectors determined by the Commission to be appropriate.
aAaOTAGE of NtlCLEAa FAC3tJTIES on FtlEL Sr-16. Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S C.
2254)is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 236. SABoTACE OF NUCLEAa FACHEES on FEEL.-
"a. Any person whc intentionally and willfully destroys or causes physical damage to, or who intentionally and willfully attempta to destroy or cause physical damage to-
"tl) any production facility or utilizatica facility licensed under this Act:
"t2)any nuclear waste storage facility licensed under this Act; or "t3) any nuclear fuel for such a utilization facility, or any spent nuclear fuel from such a facility; shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
"b. Any person who intentionally and willfully causes or attempts to cause an interruption of normal operation of any such facthty through the unauthorized use of or tampering with the machinery, components, or controls of any such facihty, shall be fined not more than $10.000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both."
DEPAaTMENT tf ENEaGY INFoaMATIoM SEC.17. tai Section 143 a. (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U S C. 21GSa:Lin is amended by inserting after *
- Secretary'r' the following' ". with respect to atomic energy defense programs,".
ibt Section 148 of tne Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S C.
216 Mis amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:
"d Any determination by the Secretary concerning the applicabil-ity of this section shall be subject to jud:cial review pursuant to section 552tarDB)c,f title 5, United States Code.
"e The Secretary shall prepare on a quarterly basis a report to be made available upon the request of any interested person, detailing the cecretary's application during that period of each regulation or order prescribed or issued under this section. In particular, such report shall-
"tl) identify any information protected from dis:losure pursu.
ant to such regulation or order; "12) specifically state the Secretary's justification for deter-mining that unauthorized dissemination of the information pro-tected from disclosure under such rtgulation er order could reasonably be espected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the pubhc or the common defense and security by significantly increasmr the hkehhood of illegal pruduction of nuclear weapons, or theft, diversion, or sabotage O
h.
!!. R.2330-Il of nuclear materials, equipment or facilities, as specified under
.-subsection a.; and -
"i3) provide justification that the Secretary has applied such regulation or order so as to prote-ct from di closure only the mmimum amount of information necessary to protect the health and safety of the pubhc or the common defense and security."
eTANDARDs AND aEQtllaEMENTs tJNDLR sECTION 275 SEc.18. ta) Section 275'of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended-t!) by striking in subsection a. "one year after the date of enactrnent of this section" and substitutina " October 1,1982" and by adding the following at the end thereof: "After Octo-ber 1,1982, if the Administrator has not promulgated standards in final form under this subsection, any action of the Secretary of Energy under title I of the Uranium M211 Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 which is required to comply with, or be taken in accordance with, standards of the Administrator shall comply with, or be taken in accordance with, the standards proposed by the Administrator under this subsection until such time as the Administrator promulgates such standards in final form.",
121 by striking in subsection b. (1)" eighteen months after the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall, by*Octo.
- rule, promulgate" and inserting in lieu thereof the following-ber 31,1982, the Administrator shall, by rule, propose, and within 11 months thereafter promulgate in final form. k lik "If i3) by adding the followmg at the end of subsection -
the Administrator fails to promulgate standards in final form under this subsection by October 1,1983, the authority of the Administrator to promulgate such standards shall terminate.
and the Commission may take actions u der this Act without regard to any provision of this Act requiring such actions to comply with, or be taken in accordance with, sundards promul.
gated by the Administrator. In any such case, the Commission shall promulgate, and from t:rne to time resise, any such standards of general application which the Ccmmission deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the conduct of its beensing activities under this Act. Requirements estr.b-hshed by the Commission under this Act with respect to byprod-uct material as defined in section 11 e 421 shall conform to such standards. Any reqvirements adopted beting such byproduct material before s
promulgation by the mmission of such standards shall be amended as the Commis-sion deems necessary to conform to such standards in the same manner as provided in subsection f. (3s. Nothing in this subsec.
tion shall be construed to prohibit or suspend the implementa-tion or enforcement by the Commission of any requirement of the Commission respecting byproduct materts! as defined in section 11 e. (2) pendmg promulgation by the Commission of any such standard of general appheation_";
(4) by adding the following new subsection at the end therecf:
- f tl> Prior to January 1,19mi the Commission shall not imple-ment or enforce the provisions of the Uranium hhll Licensmg Requirementa pubhshed as final rules at 45 l'ederal Register 65521
~
e
~.
!!R2 h l2 to f@ on October 3,19 Fit thr reinafter in this subiation referred to as the ' October 8 rea Commission is autLrize$ulationsl. Alter Daember 31. lW the to implement and enforce the provisions of such October 3 regulations f and any subwquent malificat ona or additior.s to such regulations which may be adopted b3 the Commie sions, except as otherwise prusided in paragraphs #2t and (3) of this I
subsection "t2n Fo!!owing the proposal by the Administrator of stardards under subsection b., the Commission shall resiew the Octcber 3 regulations, and, not later than 90 days after the date of such proposal, suspend implementation and enforcement of any provision of such regulations which the Commission determines after r:otice and opportunity for ublic comment to require a major action or major commitment licensees which would be unnecessary if-
"t Al the standa s proposed by the Administrator are promul-gated in final form without modification, erd "tB) the Commission's requirements are modified to cor. form to such standards.
Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1.1988 or the date on which the Commission amends the October 3 regulations to conform to final standards promulgated by the Administrotor under subsection b. During the period of such suspension Commission shall continue to regulate byproduct materia} the tas defined in section 11 e.129 under this Act on a licensee-by licensee
[
basis as the Commission deems necessary to protect pubhc health, safety, and the environment.
i "i3t Not later than 6 months after the date on wh;ch the Adminis.
trator promulgates final standards pursuant to subsection b. of this section, the Commission shall. after notice and opportunity for public comment, amend the October 3 regulations. and adopt such modifications, as the Commissien deems necessary to conform to such final standards of the Administrator.
"t4l Nothing in this subsection may be construed as affecting the authority er responsibihty of the Commasion under section 84 to promulgate regulations to protect the public health and safety and the environment.".
ibn!) Section 10!kal of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Con trol Act of 1975 is amendeu by adding the fo!!owing new paragraph at the end thereof.
93s Notwithstanding paragraphs (16 and Ib of this subsection, after Octcber al.1992 if the Administrator has not promulgated e
standards under section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 it, final form by such date, remedial action taken by the Secretar) under this title shall enmply with the standards 3,ropmed b the Administrator under such section 275 a. until such time as the Administrator promulgates the standards in final form.".
l i25 The second sentence of section IWamb of the Uranium Mill Taihngs Radiation Control Act of 1976 is repealed.
ACassMENT STATES l
Sw.111. tai Sect;on 274 o. of the Atamic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding the following at the end thereof. "In adopting requirements pursuant to paragraph rb of this subsection with respect to sites at which ores are processed primarily for their scurce maternal content or mhah are used for the disposal of byproduct material as dehned in section 11 e t$, the State may l
I l
l 11.R 2334-13 adopt alternatives (including, where appropriate, site-specide alter-natives) to the requirements adopted and enforced by the Commis-sion for the same purposeif, aftfr*notne and cpportunity for public hearing, the Commission determines that such alternatives will achieve a level of stabihzation and containment of the sites con.
cerned, and a level of protection for put,lic health, safety, and the environment from radiolegical and nonradiological hazards asso-ciated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practica-ble, or more stringent than the level which would be achiesed by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commis-sion for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275. Such alternatise State requirementa may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology."
(b) Section 204thx3) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Con-trol Act of 1975 is amended by inserting the followmg before the period at the end thereof. ": Provided, Aoume. That, in the case of a State which has exercised any authority under State law pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the State authority over such byproduct material may be terminated, and the Commission authority over such material may be exercised, only after compliance by the Com-mission with the same procedures as are applicable in the case of termination of agreements undersection 274j of the Atomie Energy Act of 1%4 "
AMENDMENT TO sEcTtoN 84 SEc. 20. Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19*A is amended by adding the following at the end thereof.
"c. In the case of sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content or which are used for the disposal of byproduct material as defined in section 11 e. (2), a licensee may prepose alternatives to specific requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission under this Act Such alternative preposals may take into account local or regional cor.ditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology The Ccmmission may treat such alternat.ves as satisfying Commission requirements if the Commission determines that such alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiolcgical hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent pra:ticable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and rmuire-ments adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same pur-pose,nd any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environraental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275 "
EDCEMONT SEc. 21. Section lee) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Contrui Act of 1378 is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
"t3s The Secretary shall designate as a processing site within the meaning of section 101@ any real property, or improvements thereon, in E'dgement, South Dakcta, that-
H R.2330-14
% is in the vicinity of the Tennessee Valley Authority uranium mill site at Edgemont ibut not incidling such sites, and "iB)is determined by the Secretary to be contaminated with residual radioactive materials.
In making the designation under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consult with the Administrator, the Commission and the State of South Dakota. The provisions of this title shall apply to the site so designated in the same manner and to the same extent as to the sites designated under subsection tal escept that, in applying such provisions to such site, any reference in this title to the date of the enactment of thm Act shall be treated as a reference to the date of the enactment of this paragraph and in determining the State share under section 107 of the costa of remedial action, there shall be credited to the State, expenditures made by the State prior to the date of the enactment of this paragraph which the Secretary deter-l mines would have been made by the State or the United States in i
carrying out the requirements of this title."
ADDITick AL AMENDMsNTs 70 ssCTION: 84 AND 275 Sse. 22. (a) Section $4 a. (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting before the comma at the end thereof the following: ", taking into account the risk to the public health, safety, and the environment, with due consideration of the economic costs and such other factors as the Commission determinea to be appropriate,",
(b) Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended-(1) in subsection a.. by inserting after the second sentence l
thereof the following new sentence:"In establishing such stand.
ards, the Administrator shall consider the risk to the public I
health, safety, and the environment, the environmental and cconomic costa of applying such standards, and such other fators as the eministrator determines to be appropriate.";
and
- 42) by adding at the end of subsection b (1) the following new sentence: "la establishing such standards, the Administrator shall consider the risk to the pubfac health, safety, and the en ironment, the environmental and economic costs of applying such standards, and such other factors as the Administrator determines to be appropriate "
URAN!UM SUPPLY Soc. 23. taill Not later than 12 months after the d-ste of ena+
ment of this section the President shall prepare and submit to the Congress a comprehensive renew of the status of the domestic uramum mining and milling industry. This review shall be made available to the ap;;ropriate committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives.
(2) The Comprehensive review prepared for submission under paragraph (1) shallinclude-(Al projections of uranium requirements and inventories of domestic utilities; iBr present and future projected uranium production by the domestic mining and milhng industry; ici the present and future probable penetration of the domes-tic market by foreign imports, O
.., ~,,..
II. R. 220-15 (D) the size of domestic and foreign ore reserve.
ID present and projected, c:omestic urantum aploration 6penditures and plans; (D present and projected er.ployment and capitst investment in the uranium industry; (G) an estimate of the sevel of domestic uranium production necessary to ensure the viable existence of a domestic uranium industry and protection of national security interests; till an estimate of the percentage of domestic uranium demand which must be met by domestic uranium production i
through the year 2000 in order to ensure the level of domestic i
production estimated to be necessary under subparagraph (GP, (1) a proj'eetion of domestic uranium production and uranium price levels which will be in effect both under current policy and in the event that foreign import restrictions were enacted by Congress in order to guarantee domestic production at the level estimated to be necessary under subparagraph (GP, (J) the anticipated effect of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing on the demand for uranium; and (K) other information relevant to the consideration of restric-tions on the isnportation of source material and special nuclear material from foreign sources.
(b1(1) Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding the following new section at the end thereof:
"Sec.170B. Umasuu SurrLv.-
"a. The Secretary of Energy shall monitor and for the years 1983 to 1992 report annually to the Congress and to the President a determination of the viabihty of the domestic uranium mining and milling industry and shall establish by rule, after public notice and in accordance with the requirements of section 181 of this Act, within 9 months of enactment of this section, specific criteria which shall be assessed in the annual reports on the domestic uranium industry's viability. The Secretary of Energy is authorized to issue regulations providmit for the collection of such information e
as the Secretary of Energy deems necessary to carry out the moni-toring and reporting requirements of this section.
"b. L pon a satisfactory showing to the Secretary of Energy by any person that any information, or portien thereof obtained under this section, would, if made public, divulge proprietary information of such person, the Secretary shall not disclose such information and disclosure thereof shall be punishable under section 1905 of title 18, Umted States Code.
"c. The criteria referred to in subsection a shall also include, but net be lirr.ited to-
)
[
- tl) an assessment of whether executed contracts or options for scurce material or special nuclear o.aterial will result in prater than 37% percent of actual or projected domestic uranium requirements for any two-consecutive > ear period being supplied by source material or special nuclear material from foreign sources;
"(2) projections of uranium requirements and inventories of domestic utilities for a 10 > ear period; s
l "t3) present and probable future use of the domestic market
[
by foreign imports; "H) whether domestic economic reserves can supply all future needs for a future 10 year period, F
/
i
t i
H. R.2330-!G
"(5) present and projected domestie uranium exploration experidatures and plans; 161 present and. projected employment and capital invest-ment in the uranium industry:
"til the level of domestic uranium production capeity suffi-l cient to meet projected domestic nuclet : power needs for a 10 i
year period, and "tB) a projection of domestic uranium production and ura.
nium price levels which will be in effect under various assump-tions with respect to imports.
"d. The Secretary or Energy, at any time, may determine on the basis of the monitoring and annual reports required under this
[
section that source material or special nuclear material from foreign sources is being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the United States uranium mining and milling industry. Based on that determi-nation, the United States Trade Representative shall request that the United States International Trade Commission initiate an inves-tigation under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 439 US C. ' till.
t "e. (1) If, during the period 1982 to 1992, the Secretary of Energy determines that executed contracts or options for source material or special nuclear material from foreign sources for use in utilization facilities within or under the juttsdiction of the United States represent greater than 37% percent of actual or projected domestic l
uranium requirements for any two consecutive-year period, or if the l
Secretary of Energy determmes the level of contracts or options involving source material and special nuclear material from foreign sources may threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary of Energy shall request the Secretary of Commerce to initiate under f
section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 19G2 t19 USC.1862) an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of source material and special nuclear material. The Secre-tary of Energy shall cooperate fully with the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out such an investigation and shall make available to the Secretary of Commerce the findings that lead to this request and such other information that will assist the Secretary of Commerce in the conduct of the investigation.
"(21 The Secretary of Commerce shall, in the conduct of any itsestigation requested by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to this section, take into account any information made available by the Secretary of Energy,includmg information regarding the impact on national security of projected or executed contracts or eptions for source material or special nuclear material frem foreign sources or whether domestic production capacity is sufficient to supply projected national security requirements.
e O
s-
!!. R. 2330-17 "l3) No sooner than 3 years following completion of any investiga-tion by the Secretary of Commerce under paragraph (U, if no recommendatiott has been made pur/bant to such study for trade i
adjustments to assist or protect domestic uranium production, the Secretary of Energy inay initiate a request for another such investi-gation by the Secretary of Commerce."
Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives.
Vice President of the United States and hesident of the Senate.
O 9
AM/- >
Toz 11 Calendar No. 370
" T.' = " H R 2 3 3 0 IN Tile SEN ATE ol' Tile l'NITEI) ST.\\ T E N N m > sou e 9 a c.-lan o 6 Nm i suo u ;> ni-1 l{,,e-,
,d li} in e i' i! tii! i f t tie i
AN ACT To :uithorize appropriation-to tin-Nin lear Iteculatort ( 'oin nii -
< ion in accordance wit h ection 261 ofthe \\;onne Encrey Act of 1101. a s ainelnled. aini -cetion :0 0 of t he Energy it ei n rea ni /.a t ioll Ati
<>l 1971.
H-alllellued aint f or oth r purpo-e.
1 ll< it < oaeta il by tio
.% + o u t, a wl lionso of ll< pn u nta 2 tirr, of the f 'nita il Stato 8 of.1 no n ea i n f 'o w i n ~> a s m w h h il.
SI("rH)N 1. t a l Tlier.. - herchv n otinirix..il tii he a pprii-
-l priated to tin Nuclear Iteculatorv i'onuni--ion in accordance w it h t he pros i-n,n-of -ect ion 2n l ot t he A toinn Encrey \\ ct
($ (il l'O I i l '_' I
.% I ' 23 )l II ifit} ' ' ' l ' t 18 ) l l III b (II I kit' ! lit'fe)
I licorun nizat U ni Tet of I DI I I 12 l ' > ( '. is.. o. t < ir i he ti-i al spelnied.
s ca r, lu-2 :n al l u-:; t o reto un a ' :u!a hle 'na H i
I
2 1 $ 18.i.s7:i.( H H ) f or fi-e il vear !!)S2 a nd $.il:1. l( H ) HI H ) for 2 fiscal vear !!)S:s to be allocated as follow <:
3
- 11) Not inore than $ 71,< )!'7.M( H ) for fiscal rear 4
lits 2 and $7ti.711.44 H) for fiscal rear l!)S:1, nia r he
.i used for ' Nuclear l{eactor llegulation' of which an
'I an ut not to exceed $ 1 (H H) t H H) is authorized each i
san: ascal vear to be u<ed to accel, :.te the effort in N
ca>-cooled thernuil reactor preapplication reticu.
I' (2) Not niore than $li l..i l 3. lt H ) for fiscal Year 1()
l!N2 a nd $ti2..ifil,(i( H ) for ti. cal vcar !!)s:1 inn v he l1 u ed for 'In<pection atal Enf orcenient 12 I:1) Not inore than $ 17,.ifli.( H H ) for fiscal vear I3 l!)H2 anni $ 17,(i:it ) 2t H I for fiscal vear l!!s:1 ina y he li u ed for 'S t a nd a rd s l)evelopinent' li (1) Not niore than $ 1.i.Iliti.( H H b for fiscal ve ir 1(i l!)^2 oal $ 17,1).itt,t;f H ) for tiscal year 1!68:1 nia r he 17 u-ed f or ' Nuclear.\\laterial Saf et y and Safeguards lh i.7 ) Not niore t }.a n $227,:illi 2( H ) for fiscal vear l!'
l!b2 and $ '4 7,1:ili.14 H) for li cal tear lits:t ina v he 2h u ed for ' Nuclear llegulatorv if e sca rch '
of which an 21 aniount not to e xceed $:1..i( H ) ( H H i for ti cal vear I!tsu u n!.31.. >4 H l.' H H ) for ti cal year !!ts:1 i' authorized to he
. v >)
Il'I'I II) a ( *('( *](* fll { (' { fl(' ('f f(l[J hll r,a g s. (.g,( g l g,4
{ f gg,j gg, l
~*
21 actor <afet t re earch.
nR a :n-rs
g 4'N*r g 9
r.'
f e.
~.. - - +..
=J.
.e s -
.)
e. -
~ m.
r -
+
1 on Not inore than $ 18.7.i7.200 lor tiscal vear
.v-
- a
, e
- m m.y. :...
1982 aiul $20.197.sm for tiscal tear Ito:i niar he g
',c :
- =.
..r.6 2
g, J. --
-n
- i u<ed for 'I'rograin,l,echnical s.upport
.1 :
5 1
4 til Not niore t 'ia n S O ).546,4( H i for fiscal tear
. f h.
4:,
3..,
,i 19s2 alul $41.797 (H H) f or fiscal year 195:i inav he
[_.* i
,1;.,
v y
e
~.
e 6
used for 'Procrain l)irection and Adinnu-t ration.
yp. -7 p.
m sg 2., y ';
7
( k)) Tli.' ( 'iiiiiiiiissi(iii iiia r t i,. e iiiit ii n i r(' tlinii 1 in r
- .?
4
'(
s
- J 5 (*('lltllIll ()f I II' alIl(IIIIlk s !lll l(Ir /l'I III II' a fIlIIIIfIr $II'%
III!I I I
-c d
,.,. ;.m.
9 paracraph mi of sub ection in) to exercise it-authoritt utaler
' % ;. ~ m v.-
~..$
(..
1,.e 3
lIl <ect on $ 1 a. ol t le.kIlllll C Ilerdt cI 13! k 9*,) ! i n e nIc I IllIII
..- n,I *'.-..
g..
I
- q'
. - 'S d
11 gra n t s alld cooperative acreelitents wit h iltliver<ltles pursuallt
."(
c
. =i,
.-d 12 I() Iflat <ecl oll. I rallI' !!!a e hv i It' ( llllll! '<llul < la l ht'
[.7
, '. [
g'.
s
- ?. '
^ :'
u, W
wi
.q 1:1 niade.in accorthlnce wit h t he l,ederal (irant s alul(.ooperative
,, n ;..,
y m uA
' W
- i ' i
.t, C.', %.
- y. -
%s 4
i -
4,j,.s y
g 14 Aerectnents Act of 1977 aini other apph,rahle law. In inakine
+
.p.
~.
l.i <ucli grants and ellterille illio siteli c(ioperall\\ e agreellletit <.
E.$, s. c 2
it-1H the ('onuni<sion shall endeavor to provide appropriate oppor-
- ; N,
.e
,, ( 7.;
i 14 tulutles for ulliver<ities in which t he <tiideiit hodt lias liistori-
... ?M J-.
y u
_.g
[
lh cally be('n llredilinkila te!v ('()lllllr M't (6I 11] lltirktv [r()lllls.
f.
'O
..,,1 l '. ~ '.
1 19 (cHl) Not :nore Ihall $.it H ) ( H H I of Ihe alliolinI a pproprt-e 9
'4 9:,
a,
~. -;
- t ' z :
2() ated for a ti3ral year to the Nuclear llecuhitory ('oliittliuloll I.
J
,^ ' ' '
t'
. ~.,
6:
..h f
21 under anv paracraph of subsection (al for purposes of the
,.. 3-3'. ;.
-'. H.-
f
<..e :. -
i '
.t
- .'ia.g
- q s
22 Illa v he ll'ed kit t bf'
} [ " -:
prograill s p e ci[ke(l ill Illai pa ra MTa j d t 2$ ( ()!lllllisik()fl kll t killI Ii4'a! vt'llr f(Ir lHlrjn)'f (II a llrflRralli l' t ' -
h j.*,.' '.' JQ,, f..
^
y g.
,^ -
,p
-h f f' rll"( t() 11 ally (It l('r l)IIIIlgrlllI I ()
'il ISI*('l IIII (II I. IS III ! ll' S.
'[
jy caw
. _ Y ^~
$- g b,)
- illl()lllit a \\ alla f d(' Ir(llli a lllIrf tllr aI (Ill' I(if a I 4'a! vf'a r \\(if
[j v.7.#,.,.,[~
h.-
a 4.:
m-:-
'{ 4r; ',,.,. '..., ' - 8.
l' 5 Ac- -..
w.g.
Y.,.[ ") n.,
n a m,_ m
.o.
.dle y
- ~. n
...* k
,,m.
,,... -.i, *'...."
'*.*'..<'(,,,,', '.
'd,,.
-)O l '
.g.,, '
F; -,,
+'.
B,
.3
,.5'./.
l 1 purposes ofany prograni specified in ant paragraph of sub-2 section (a) Inas not he reduced for that ti ral Year hv niore
- 1 t ha n $ ')( H ) i H H )
4 (2) The liinitations on reprograining coiitained in para-
.~> graph (1) s}ndl not apply where the ('olninis< ion suhnlits to G the ('ommittee on interior :nni In<ular Attairs aint t he ( 'oni-7 mittee on Enerer and ('ononcree of the I nited States llourc S of llepresentatives and to the ( 'oliin nit t ee on Environinent il and l'nhlic Works of the I'nited States Senate a notification lo containing a full and complete <tatement of the action pro-11 posed to he taken and tl" tart < and cirrumstances relied on 12 in <upport ot <uch proposed action. uni it-13
< Al each such cononittee. hetore the expiration of t hirt y-da v period. tra nsmits to the ( 'on o nis sion a Il a
1.i written notitication t hat t he c ononittee does not ohiert 16 to the propovd action; or II (l$1 a t hirt v-da y period passes during w hirli ini I8 sneh connuit tee iransmit s tu t he ( 'ononssion a written 11) notifiention that t he connnittee disa ppros es of the pro-2ti posed actinii.
21 The thirtv-das period reterred to m the parneraph shall com.
22 un nee upon the receipt hv rach such conunittee o! t he notice 23 ref erred to in the preceding sentence In computine -urh 21 period there shal! not he nuen inn, account ant la t m u hn h 2.i nt her llou-e ut ( 'ongre- ~ v m -emon her.ose o! o
- , d nR u--r-
a w
1 ' r.
j
+ ' - x i
.-e g
.a 3,.
c 1 putrunlent til Ilu bre t ha n t hrer ndelula r ila s s to a M \\ im a m f.-
g, y
2 or an adjournnit'n!
s n ir die hacI: i t 'H d u ll t Cr IPIU f f"I I
lh
[*-
].
._,,.7,.
h
.i
.1 thi3 par:Igraph Ina\\ a}iprsi\\ r iir disa pproi r a pro lnisaI of t b
?
.- n..
in -wh Inannef n'
'lHi 7-1 ( 'on u niuioll under llos pa ra gra ld t
..g.
.~i rotumittet dern b appriipriate
~ ; -, ~:.-
z- '
- r.,
e-y.
7 G
SEc-.j. Sliinev s rece!\\rd hV t he ( 't 'i n illi U 'll b'r t he a
' -(
s
,/,
-s.
t c -..
~.
I' I
(1}it ra t i\\ l' llilt'lt'a f f t t'a rt'!! }lf t 8cf M lIl' IIIM \\
' ' ' I i'I M II'l M III
[,'..
'.g-t
.e
-u -.., ' -
~
..n -
g N
s used liir sa la rle s a tul r\\pel'-r' a 'cla t ni \\\\ it h t !ui-r p ra i 4
- ,,. '.,;4.
..~g 1
("
s.
.,. s, g i
p
- * -'l '. "I e -
U cra n t s. not \\\\ it h-la nding t he pros l-ion- 'it -er!'on Z l _i ' d t he
,.g../--
l s
e
++..W.-
'. +
~
h ll) l(evised Statutes (31 k. N I ' I ' l l. alid 'hM II ICHIMlll M\\'
M C
3',
,fi f.'. ' M '
... g.s bu eO M'
be Y
ll 11111ilt'\\pelHb*tI.
's }
., ".. - + -
-^
.%.,. - ?
~
1 "-
SE(
.i. !)llriflg IIlr li'ra! T ra f' l!b2 alhI I'N; IfMU'
.8.
i-.
^?
a.
1:i irrs t il.llIll
- lit o ll sa la rlt alHI\\pi*llst's id 1 a Sin' 'a r l('Til f f' -
~$
5 V
- ;..g
.g}'-
N 11 lators ( 'o m u n-lo n mas he made ti, of her acencu~ o! ihe
?., ',."
d 5
}.~) k nkit' bI;lt4~' kII'\\l'rlillll'lII II I M' ['It ' 'IIIIM IIVI' 'il \\\\ ( r k f > r
-,l p
1
[.. '.'*
is hich t he a ppriiprl:tiliin :- n!: tdt' a lid i n 'lld UM 'i I H'
' lull'
/
lli r
. m -..
=- -
%l1
[k k
- k' k'k k
I l
L..
- -),
. ~ _.
~
d, IPG' g
~
c.
- s ;
g, a
k
('. l [I I )l 1 10ir1 \\
II
!! ! I I
k I
s' '*..
3<
c - -
.f t he cuent or m -um :nnonnt-a- a re proi nhm{
. - : t; g
21 t ii r r ur p: to
.y.
.=
\\l.;.'}-w. * '
n
,f 7 ' '.' g+,, ( " -
in advaner in approprmt uin.\\rt'
[
+.-
W
,,g,d.
,c
=
11 - i h -r e f i' 41 i hl. (d IIM
.-h,
pr<ii nh1!
2:i S E(
. >. Ia) [\\rept
~
a-
,y.
,6
,t-
,I
,}
1 illlillllIlt *.'lllI Illfl /I'l III
'I' I f'fIII'lIII I I
'I I '
I ' '
.[.,
,..._c..
~. '%... c.-
w o none 'han D "U""nai 2.i ti-ral\\rar-lH 2 and l'. N
.a.
...(
i.
+.c_,
+
> !i g
"?,'k.
- % -, l W'. -
n d.
o
- ,,,% e ;
- 7 3
...y 3_4
-e "'..,J*,-
ll H i
-.r, t
-n_..,
i e+
,=.
=
,.g+**
-tr i
- =
}
,I J
N" g
4
d I
8',
[
.f
~ j; W. 7.s"---N.,r~.
~,e,
.-S e..,,
k,)
(
.:4
- +
1 It'etl hv the Niicle:ir liettihitorv ('oriiriii"iori t<ir tlic acipiid-
- 5.? :
.- c: ; i
.3
's N -
2 t if ill d l)V pl t rellit W b 'il W t ir a lt lle r\\Vi5t'l :1111} ills t il!l:lt lilll ol
~f j
.Q..
v i etplipille')t to he uw<l for tlle ' sin:ll! text priiti st V pe nilele:t r f,
_. jq -(
- l.n
.E
, s
. =
t.
4 il:it:1 l..,
progr:Un or f or an\\ other prograin f or t he coller
..4" ' a
'.. f..
ink
-4
.... s
, ~)
1, -
'"s,'
.)
tloll :llitl t rallsilliwllill til flle ( h tillnliniitll t il t ht t :l t rill 11 1
.. -, - :g.
e s,
k i
k 4
k
., a.
4 y,..
4 l
a
,g k,.,,=
I
!k I
Ii l 0} k l Ih l h*kk k
k k
3-
!I a pl)l V til (1]IlllIlllt'lli IInf \\\\ fill'l: t llf' I (l!llll; s li !!: llf t'll:f rt's 1!iil
.l.
.'\\
s jit a 'ilis-a i ijills i t ii ni :llnl llis t:ill:t t h n t Y_... ' k,. "'.';"
4.
lli s t!!ntlit s 1(i ( 'a ulgri s s
(,
c - j --, y. +,. (
}l lPff llHis ll llllit's s eifH'f llHl'i' t i! k I 'l![re s s rt' p1'I s s l h 'll lIrl'.
~8 s
s
}2 lHistil \\Uit filll sl\\ti i ll('f ttk f r (l:t \\ s f)! silt'fl s t illllli ss lI li t
- [-
p
'r-i II ik *l l !\\
lk
- I l k 'l k II
]4 0I I ll**\\
l fl k
-.~
f..
t a 4 f
...,...v.
,, 4. y
>.,u:
(
)
q 4
=
cw g
6 k
lk k
\\
\\
ki
\\
k l
[
p *
+, : -
N
,2,.. -,
(
b d
e,
~
-ueh repairi alal hi a iluo
'd'-
'.',.?-.
p, i
i
';t t e nient. hi sed v u 'he repair 1 s
V
+
- e.. 3
,,.p-
+.
r
. _q.
' ' I i 1][
lirt i ! it' It ' l 'i fli '
1!ll lil'!!!ll lli Illi lIlr i llf' lirl f {lli l.
[
,t tI 2Il 1Al I[it' * 'ld\\ :1!u} alht!i-1' n tv 'rttl !(i 1;l lia ra y 'a jil,12 )
',A...-
.' S s.;
s.
'.~.v3 m.
l t
k!
I l
,s,...,
p
-f 5,.,F
_h.... [ ' _.. ', ; 0,[N "
Tl the a p priipr hi t e reih of flo- ( l o t:nii' sin (iurirm 2 '_
(
%.y-u.
t a lo;c lea r r e u lie i m 'ed hs
.[S.,E ' k. -,
2:,
a.euirinal m onI!! o ui' m :y. a
- e f b. E. [ ~. '.. M.,. -
- .
2l IIm ('<inintis a ui.
-.e
- V )s k
fa
"-?-
e.
^,:
. ', 4 :
a
- b., t4, j.,
- s,,
' ~, ',-
s.a
,. */
-., -_. '... 'p 7,...
d
_'. -~_. Q -
<.*,y
- .5 4..
y, A.g. _Rh '
MN i, '.7 -M-? i.q,f d
%.g v ~ =.;::m.,,. s ua.
- ~
3.'.e-. - p -
/.. f.i
+ -., '...
_e p,,..
I
- 4..
a 1
(l$) l}le illltirill lli(lll \\V!lic kl *llilllbI It ' Il \\ ;l l;ll' l' I'l 2
te ( 't )lllllli 3 S IOll t() t'll:lIlle Illl' ( 't illllll k ki lli I'l Ill!!!! 3 stich role :ind to c:irrY oilt otlier rel:ited tiiiietiotis -l l( ') Vitr50lls it }l e rilit I k V e Illt' lil' t lI :l'llf k flM I 1 ll = [) Allell kilb ifl!! ll k()ll kS :l V:lkl lll!c I'l I kle I Illlllll"ll'Il III ;I 15 tilltelV lll lllllef; Illld I (!)) :l ll V ell:llige* kll t' Al'I kild I 'lillllllll'Ill lllI bilflI ' N lleceS*:trY It) t'll}l lllee ille I 't )llllllililli f'"lH ill'e I
- I b -
!) lit)Till ll etilulllkillis ll Il Illie [t ':l f ft'll('I(If ! ei'll' lY I H' l() ( 't 1111!!!! < w i s ill. 11 Tlie stildV -li:ill iiielinle ;i rii-I-in lit t ' t :i i i:il V -i - iit.uii li.ilt i I - i 12 llilliVe e \\;tillllled Illltit'r <ll}>[l:t filgr:t llfi (I 'l 13 N E( (5. ( )l I f u' aillit PillI' illlI killfl/ 4'll Ill kle :lllllfil}lf lII' ll hV illis .\\ c t lof Ifle liWill VI' t f I ' h 2. l H II Ill' 'It ' I 1:111 l,~) ,$ 31 ) ( H H ) l H H ) Ill:t V fn' lisell til t 't illI illli l e'I ' ;lI I!H' ! >i l' ' -' l! 'E 16 !'luid Te<t l'acilit v. = =_ 17 SE4'
- 7. la ) ()t iim :ilnonllt- :oit hori/, d t o in-a p pro pri I(i ll;l f;t M f;l lI l II I III 'll l'('I'I llllI IIM I-
'Illll' lM Illed j)llf sll llli m = l!! as nla v he nece"a rV shall he :is aihihle f or internu enu-olala = E
- 21) li(lit tit.\\ ln'!t';t r !$ t till:lli brV I illllllllH ill fica 8 b {ll l fI t'f'
'I l!I 'lI' I 21 tires in the 1)i3t rict of I'ohunbia and. to t he mient nece-a rs 22 ill !$et}le3da, M:IrVla'Id. 23 lb).S i l Illin illll! ;llll f H lfl /.('il I 8 8 kH' Mll}'filllflali'lIlilH!fIII' 2l .\\ t'l Ill:t V he ll'ed, lll t 't ill!!el'I ll ill \\\\ li ki IIll IllI 8 'Ill!1 'l lll 'I H h 2.~1 litill (Il b ilelf' i f l$4' Ell l:llfifi I ' l!!Illll ' ' l' 811 ' lll lll Ii' l!'H':ll il it 2 : to-r-
.y- ? +-n- ,.i. ..r- .,, :+.n . :... -m. m, :.- ~r _... _~ w y. r ...? w a. . = :. ,.. ;.r a , s g -9 1._J '... ed.: - l. 5 c.-- n,- i " ?f
- 2 a.
J 'o., 5 %g , i .{ ', .-" w g , c I the ortices of nienila.rs of t he ('onunimon out-ide i t t b l >L -( : ~L ^ -'7 y 7 M.." 2.. S ' 2 t rict of ('olunihin. o, 4...~ t N SE4 Y ()t t he annuinis aut}niri/ed tai he apreppi tied I [' 4 under certion
- 1. T he Nuclear llegn hi t o r\\ ( 'o nin ti3,. inn n ui t
. ' '. '.s f ^ t . c -, '. . use urh suni< as inav he nerewarv. in tlu abern e of a sim. i... *9c. a. &,E,kj'.'."*.[;d..' -.,. 9 J .i H or local entercenes preparednes' phtn u luch he been ip. E
- ; q..
.(. [::.._ .,....y }. [ I pro \\ ed hv the l'ederal l$nn rgeliev \\lanaCUInent.\\ celle t, to ,\\. [' 2 . L i'<ue a ll tiperatillg ]Ietall3e (incliidillC a It'nl[Hira rv al Praling s 'e. L.; r, ..y~ .a,. ,J licen<e under section of 12 t his.\\ril f or a nuch ar pow er re j,[ '.. [ ',,. 2' g F e f,. lil arfor. if it deterunnes that there exist a State h n al i g niij. ~L i/ :. n. ., - : >..-~i.i.- e i-( j 11 itv phui u hich pros ide-rea sona ble a-u ra nce that publir Y.Y U ?e E-J -.s 4 c... healtli and <aterv i not einbineered hv operation of tin. hn ili. 5[. _.. 4 < s j, l; 12 i$ k.wJi ? -6 :. y. u. I3 t v rotirerned. .' f '... [ P - 9 . =.., 4. 14 S E(' !!. No f und' autIniri/.ed tai he approprinted urhler i ~' y," ' l I) thi<.\\rt Inar he u sed hv tln- ( 'a urtnti'ioll to proundgate or . )' [>... ', '..,, " b .p-IC pilhlish a saleiv goal hir Intelear reactor regulation until ,s. 9. I ,8 II puhlir hearhles have been rauhhu ted hv tlH- ('onuniW% m ^ c.; J s' c . ' f ' 8, 3 15 7, 7 'perting the e-tahli hlnent ol 'uch <ately coal. l)es elopnn.nt
- ~
F- [,= ? ' ..(,.
- s 19 e
of a 'aterv coal for nuch ar reactor reculation hould he exIn.- F. U n. ' ". O. -[,- dited. to the unixionnu extent practirahle 2i> c., ti.g. ", s
- k.. -
so a s to ajh,u for .v g.; gl t he esta bh. hinent tif a.alet t goal hv t he i'auluniuion in, htf er -h u.../. ; 'O p. t %..,. ' p\\ l ). - [.; :..-, N t ha n I)ereniher 31. lib l. s _.s, y-v.. c -, ; *.. p c, - y-: .f7 4.; l(L lai No par t of the turni-antinoi/ed !<, 6 a}n 'Y # : '.t~f- ' I.-3 I.^ " # : M E(' 7,., 2 +; - L ',;g..
- ~ : - =
y.: y, -n 21 propriated under this.\\ r t Inar he U-eiltv, proside assistain.p C.,N s k., Y' b,J.[-j u.. .-e y.3 ~,. <, - O'. , av 2.-) to the (ieneral l'uhln-l'tilities ('orpenat h hu p p m g t ~ ~.] a ~? l:g. ~, -j '.f_ #..
- y
..y -A). ~.~, c p
- kk
..,,,; f... ' !? <, nR D :o-r- ..]# c j t. f _ {. /.., f., ; ~ p; 'r w y t,_-- .a y s 4.,. n
M._ 1 W -[ or reluiMlinnion "I l the decontamination. ele:unip. repair. h fl{ U t ('% at iIll'.\\ lii'
- 1 IlII 1
2' Q lu The prohibition contained in suhsn tion no -luill not a i ~ f(' l{ { (' tii t }{' rt'* f h I!I* ! k' .i mis-ion tor nionitorine or inspection ot the decont:uninanon. h) (' l3ll } } k k 1I. k Ik. 1 Ishuni and <uch prohibition -hall not apph to the n'" "I tuial-carrs out recida-
===__-- hv the Nuclear l{cculatorv t 'omnus-ion to s tl t()Tv tiln('t ()ll' III I lt' (IIIIIll I NI IIIII I _[ }() ,\\ c t ( if l '. i.3 4 Will! f tllt1't II) Ibc I;tel! II' at Tlire,- Stile --G-lo (ei ()t the amount s a u t hor.ued to he appropriated under M_ 13 section 1 for the ( )t fice ut Nuclear.\\! a t e r ud s..salett and E he itece--arv ehall in u-ed hv 14 S a t e cu:i rd s. <uch suins as nuit T 1.i the Nuclear Iteenlatorv ('onnnis-ion to promptiv enter mto a E 16 me m ora ndu n t of moons""lne wit h the 1)epartinent ut 17 Energy specifving interagener procedures tor t he dispo-ition J$ r-14 ()[ T,Hlit tal't kvc I!!aterka!' reSIl I ild Irll! I I,. i. eniiiip < > Tlit,u- -J_ w- + 2(> position prior to the ettective date ot flus.\\ ct. N o t h n.ic m h N} pil(* I !!H'llllir:illl Illli IN IIIM I'r'IU!$I Ild ' I!I U ' -M 22 authoritv or respon<ihilit v of t he Secretarv of I,ncres or t he A provided under the 23 N uclea r liecubitors ( 'm u n u --io n n-21 e necey i:cere:o n m u oo u ni m11 or umaer "us
- r n:"-
e 2.7 vi-itill t)! h1 W [_ -4 1I.11. un o r-2 - M_ m--- N -v- 'W
10 1 SEC 1 l. (a) (){ the amounts authorized to he appropri-2 ated under section 1 the Nuclear Regulatorv ('onunission 3 niay use such sums as inay be necessarv to issue and inake 4 immediately effective amendments to a license for nuclear I) power reactors upon a determination by the ('onunission that II the amendment involves no significant hazards consideratioli. 7 Such an amendment mav he issued and nuide inunediately 8 effective-9 (1) in advance of the conduct and completion of 10 any required hearing, arni l1 (2) after notice to the State m which the facility is 12 located. 13 The ('onunis< ion shall consult with such State when practi-14 cable, before issuance of the ann ndment: l'rorld, d. That I T) such consultation shall not he construed to delav the effective lIl dale (,l ally antelldulent 13slie(} ;t3 prg,yjded ggy { hig, ppg jg,gg, lgg 17 all other re spects the anierniment shall meet the re<piirenn nts 15 of the Atonne Energy Act of 197>1. 19 ih> The ('onunission shall periodically thut not le" fre 20 quentiv than everv thirty das s) publish notice of ann ndments 21 issued. or propo<ed to he i' sued a3 pri,vided in t his section. 22 Each such notice shall include all amendme nts nsued. or pro-23 posed to be issued. since t he- <iate of publication of the last 21 sneh periodic niitive The initice shall. u it h req,cet n,each ' ' T> a mendment or proposed unendun nt (liidi>ntitt t he nui lea r ll f( j. ;o-r-
11 1 power reactor concerned. aml (2) provide a brief descriptiim o-2 of the amendment. Not hing in thi- <uheection < hall be con-3 strued to delav the effective date of any :onendment issued as 4 provided in thi< section. 3 (c) The ('onunission shall promulgate. withm m nett G days from the effective date of this Act, standards for deter-munng whether an amendment to a license involves no sig-8 nificant hazards consideration. Such standards shall he pro-9 mulgated in accord:mee with the provision < of section 333 of 10 title 3 of the Fuited States (' ode. 11 SEC 12. (a) (If t}le anlolints authorized to be appropri- = 12 ated under <cetion 1. the Nuclear Reculatorv ('omnnssion 13 nlar use sach sinn as nia\\ he llere-ary to issue telnporarv 11 operatine licen<e-tor nuclear pow er reactors as provided in k 13 sertion } 92 ill iIle T t onlle fliergv Aei of ID3l. eXcept illat 16 -Ilch totuporarv operailllt livell-e-nla v he l<slied-lI (l'116 lil\\ ;illce (>l t fit' (11!!i}llt't (Ir 11Hil}}let if ul til :t u t s 13 Ilearing reipiired hv -eet u nt lD2 or h\\ sectioll 15D of a iE l '. ' Ill'Il dt' a ll(l = 21) (2) M it llisilt Ft'g l f ti f(i -Ilh t t f if ill l111 ( >! -Ilrf f -1 i' A 21 t it tll l '. I 2 < t ! s t l t f i t ' Iil:li!!!g I'# 1llli r* *f f II\\ -11 h t 11't id ill I k r il.' $ I G m j 22 ()I t f t:1! -11' t l( H i vs = a ll I ' k$h !! kk k'! I II l $I l
- k'k
!I e l $ I lI I kI a { f 23 mr condneted m i on nert uin u n h :m s :nnendme nt iir a tempo-11 R 20--
T E = 12 r K o pe ra t ing licetisH. :nnl the recoril establishnl m an\\ l rarv = ') 511(' f l f H' trill [S, sft:tll IH' Irt':!tiql : lp:lf t lil, :lil(! t 'a l!) s t,ilt }:l t t'tl 13 E .3 Wit fl. t flt' fle:t rill [s 1!lik llt':IrlIlg rt't'a pr($ f t'ajillr> ik lllltlt'r sq u'f l(1ll 1 } 4 INI ot <uch Art f or issininn' of t he anal operating license .b u f tt'rt' t bt' ( 'i t u llll k s s it ill llt't t' rill k ilt's t l1:l t slit'l t 't ili s t )l nl:s t i(ill I$ u k!! rt1}ll('P lllljillt':ltlf)ll t)I t'Illirt all(l t'x lle'illt t' f llt' I s s !!:t i n 1' t il L $ IflP Iktnt! 4)lH'r'it til[ Ib1'llst' 5 (b) d it';IllH)r:t rv ()lH'r:lt ilig llt't'llst' Isslit1l Is lprerVilh1llIl E f,l I kll< ser
- li t!! Ill!!v kllkti:tll\\ :lllI!ltirl/c Illt'! ll Ul(lkilg, t est illg, :lltl
'I F lIl llllt*! a t ilbli t }} t hit' rP:l('t tir :lt :t sllt1'iln' lH i\\\\ er lt'V t'l, (lt't t'rillllit yl .s 11 hv the ('onintission, w hich does not execed Ti per centnin of l2 IIlt' r:lte(f Ill!l t bt'rllla! lHlWt'r. !'llrs11allt t ai sil(-}l lit t'llst' :lllil ill l.1 accor(lance Wit h t he prornhire-ainl retpurenient s ni subsce 1I tion (a), the l'oninussion ina v t herealter perniit operat uni ol 1.5 the reactor at pow er le\\ cls. deterniined hv the ( 'on u n i s-ion. 16 Which exceed the.i per cention liinitation set forth in the lI }}reillfilljf we'llt t'll(1' l* b E(' l.3 (al.\\nch slun-as nla; he necessary ina\\ he l '. I list'(f IR f fit'.S ilt'lt':t r l(t'gtlln t s pr y ( 's pilll!)ls s it ill lei t s t:t(dis}l ;ill m 1 e
- 28) independent Tein pora rv.\\ d i i st,rv l'a nel thereinalter in t hi-2}
-t'('t it til rt'lt'rrillit) :t s t lle * .\\(l\\1-tir\\ l':tllt'll14
- i r r y v ill! l }lt.
I- = 22 lHirlHht'- tiltIll- - t 't 't it ill Tlie- \\ il \\ '-,,rv l':iiit'l s li:ill ( i,ii-i-r ,,t i 2.1 lilt' t!!f H'l - -t'lty't t1l !)V IIit- ( 'i p!!![lil--It ilj :1i1ll s l1;ill llis -l } lt } il- },rt. L = 2l s t'llt :llii t's (it t kit
- N :l t l,i!l;il I $ t ii t 'Flif e!'-
\\ - s # >< 1:il i t ili, ,Wl:tt,- )- 2.3 lt yt'll('le s t lla t re t'lll:ii t ' r:lte> i-}l:i rg t'i! ( i n i-i j i t u r - ), q f lie-ijst-ist = miE ll l(
- o -
r-
+ -q,. +,, d, e p d 4-4 ..y w .\\ ? ae [. . ',A, g, , _ p[ q, 4 lif ;. ,'..w
- i 4.
[.- ^ n 'y -
- i-
.3 k k ~ * * '~...,,, - g*, _a IfV. alHf f t'llfe 4'llt al k \\ t's ! f t 'll! I kit' CI'lif't :l! ll!!Il!h' % llil It'lIft'
- k...g..i.., '...[.^.>
') [ ' - - .3 s t'!!! t 'll k /.t 'll l b f t'll \\ lf t llllllt'lll a f E lf[:llli / M I 'lll* \\ l'Illh H'I' ill I kit' I- '( '. -- ',,, g:-.. a i + *y. l $ t} \\ is()f V !'alH'! s!i lll 4'r\\ t' M II f tlillt ll:t \\. N flklt' aWa\\ l fi llli 't.- y ?, .o .i t heir homes or recubir plaecs ol hu-ii~ in t he pertorunuHr 4 c,.. .t... _f,. .{* k f5 ()} 't ' f V et 's l(>f I flt'.kdVisilf \\ k '.1 lit '!, l ' t t 'lll k H ' f - 18{ IIll' ! 'll l i t ' I W,. 4,, 4J w p' ~ ^ ,. 'd -; g,
- t.
- ..
.~ -
- -s. -
- . = -
- e. j 6.
1 1 s f t lf! fit' ll{t)W t'd I f:l \\ t'l t'\\lh'llst'- llH'llltilll[ [H'f dit'lli ll1. ill t a iH'll .,c w ,p-- '1 -k.- person-einphivnl Int ef- < u h-Is t e nce in the saule nlanner a s s iS. 3, c- .-?, j si-t'- tilDb ,i.'. ' a [!a lu t'll t'\\ ln w' 9 IlllitelillV ill (itl\\ erllllit'lif 4 ' r \\ U 'I' :l f f- ^ v n.' i - (' lt) section.)i( d of title ._) olthe I..litti d Stath I,mle ,I, h e 'j ' '- I'. i ni-a ?, .x c. e' v_
- ,4
_ 4. J. :.. } t'f I .\\( V I'llf V ()llll} } iiit't' .\\ ('l k. lIll. I
- 1I IIIII
. '. -....e' 4 ; m ..- *j y ' i <k ),q 12 app}V lei the esia hlishillt'llt a lDI tipe f a t iini iil i ht l 'a lid. 3 '..-. g 4[ 4a. '. . (9 1:1 t hH l),I3 h r AdvisorV l'a nel n r a h,,i-hni uinier -uhsection J W-[. n.,. ? t l t (i w .- s r.> s g t 6 d r. i g :. .' [. }.b l$) IfM* ('flt '('li \\ l'!!t'- w 1)I I fit' 11111'!!' t f lH i \\Vt ' fll! llli Il- " I,; ' .i g-E' t et'll*Iu( }lfi le t' % % 1][ a s-llflll[ f sa f IIt if,.,. \\.' ;., f,t' fl'I ![ ft llN'll 3 ^ l ) I lt'.\\ Illlll ( ' Ill' f[V.k d 'I Ill l.I. ) h all( I lf' . :lI till:1 .ll- - }... - 5 1. f.. ;.,. J '.. N;f s ifolunental l'olirY Tet ist l '. c iU a re inet m the liceli- .t ;a " -- w. ~
- ; V r
'g N3~ p 's
- I
.4 l '. I kilg ()! lilH-lt'a f lHi\\Vf'TjlIalli-'. y . ? ;1, 7 .., ' e +j .l. : ; , y. } 3) (!$) Ifit' t'lIit'H'lli'i it! Ikif' lilit *lt'a l lH IM l'f jlt a lli l ll't 'll *
- k. ' ', \\ -
- f. s
? , ' ;. ; -] ' ? t-f.- ,,. p !!! ilH' llq 1'll s t il[ ff ' ?.. [ "y 'fy "I ilig pf(H1'<- alHlllH-l Hilt'litial !(if de'la\\ ~ c,.. ,1 e,.. s =# 4 p >T 22 ait lutclea r pawerpla nt - nieluding ihe extent t4i u hlch \\' - l. :t;. J - f. 3 :','- 1...'
- J.' s... '.. :"...,.1.,
,.q, M 2:5 t }lt're l'\\i<!- tilllit 11'-sa r v il11liI:s a t h ill < >l s 'ila irt 111 ilH-Il- ,' ). N - ' ).J i ~%) .7.'A. 7.. ~, v ,;f^ ' <:. -1 _. n.. ; n 2f (1'll'ill[ (il Illlf'It'a f lHiu f"flIl:lli! - g.... 7
- l
.) - ~ e. ,' ?;.y b~ 7 ll. .x.y... ,.;. 7,.. 'l-;.' .. f = p . u. : 9-f..,; ;
- _, A
e s,g ,t ; - Y., *;.. g ,
- u.. _
w,~. ,.: t, ,.e ' " E.yt'. * * " ' b';.. ~<' ,{, -c ' uR _ ! pi-r - 6 + '...'i.'* .A , g..,. ,1 = '. - < q.y.J [ 7 - ' k g* A. ... + ip ..t-
I d ') the extent to which there exists stability and 2 predict a nt h t v in the liet !!<ine precess for nilelear
- i pow erphints ;n.d 1
ilh t he oe;,n o:nitt for public participation in the nu, ', ar powerphint licensine process. I;
- 2) The evaknition uinier parneraph 11) shall inchnie hut 7 sh al not he liinited to, an exalnination of S
(.\\ i t he inantler in which need-for-power deterini-9 nations are m: ole concernine propo-ed nuclear power-lii pla nt s hv I ederal and State acenem< under l'ed e ra l 11 and State lau uni the extent to whwh there are dupli-12 cating or overhippine reipiircumnts and procedure < re-1: <pectine t hese deterininations. !I If$l the ellert. il int. w hl"h the iwuance hv 1> State-of earlv ite permit s for ':uclea r pow erpla n t s lii w<ntld have on the liurica, pv >u erphie t heens!!!c pror-17 inchnline - ~ is in the i-ue-u luch shouh! he run-idered in 19 the i-~uance ol wh permit. 2i> tiii the duration of ~uch perinit-2! lili) t fil' re l;l t lilli-Ilil) he't u t f fl St; tit' ilt 'I'i s U di s 22 under an earlv ir permit proce-- ;u d Federal rc e 2J .p a re n m u t - under the.\\nunw l{neres \\ct of 21 I M T> i, a n d nu -r. mil L. u
f-1.i I (id the eth et \\\\luch sueli ln rinit s should 2 h:n e njnin subsequent licensine decisions h\\ the e} G f .1 (( 'l t he e\\tellt tai \\\\ hich Sis te-til:i v det t rlllille the g g 0 d I ~ 7 titilb alid the design :illd tiper:it 'ini s t :llid a rd s :llH! re l quire:nen t - unposed t uder t he \\tonur E nc rey \\, i of s 9 19.i l. 11) ici The \\d\\ rur\\ l'a nel e-t a hli-hed orHh r suh ect ion hi s }} w h:lll esu H ulethl' it-t'\\ :lllnli h ill illH!r ' llII11 ' ll t II'I \\\\II Illi = l' sixty day-a f t e r ellit e' H u'ilt 41 t h!' \\ct. a lul \\\\ it hill i'lle IUlli-s
- I I
a h n:e re po rt -et t me tort h t he re -u h - 11 rv Panel -h:d! prepa re O t ( IE A }$ l!lt 'llll;l t it )'i-id!f ll!' ltl't til
- t I!!II:lli r:f Il \\ l' IIf t'CI' ;lll \\ '
M !w cha nci - tii ' Y prin e-The p<irt -h:i!! he aihiniti. d t < > t he 'Eii $E 19 N uch*a r Hecu!itor' ( 'on um-on a nd ti! the t ',u ;n u' t e. <>n m a p 'l i k l IIl!lI!II' f I I II iI !I l'I I I I II i 'I 'I I' I II I ! M f It 's il!it Ilf tj' II!I!!II ! I'l ' il!i ', 11 \\ } III! f !!!I'!'! IIIll II I lI I l'!' illl I! .) fir - i lI I ll' t' ,lti !d' . II 'l' 1 l ll ' " ll1 fill 21 u pon -o hn u-o m u a r, n.u ' uR mi-
..= m L
- ... b g_
g 3.: 1 ] h, .,g i e, u,,m omrn am m om sema,m m um report .m 'W. ' * ~,, I kk .l.\\ \\(Irk ll}l' llllk ('r %Il I%('("f {l)f \\ ll' , f l(* t lllll j ) s s lll{ l 5 .[ '-.' l. u
- j,,
, S i ~ j *,,.. =- sh:th prm. le tai t he-ninlinit te, - I!allmd ill subn't hin Irl J W 5 ., y.. b' k I.\\ I t [it I,illlllll] s'lilli s \\ t ' \\\\ s lili i f)t' lj((tf fl}{s, ( 13 l l - - I v.- '. ' *.ps%pobra,, .,=-w . ; ~,. .p U hidt ili s, alid ren utillie!Uht t linis st*t jiert ti ill t!n-re.!h>rt .!,1
- g.
.) ex ..= e k + .t [. ^.- 4 ,V. g
- e. O
.= Ul ~ }II I F Ik k{' (.(i[f fllls %(l)ll fl))Ql)flll l)( l{lC l& .;, h,, l I r '. * *s . ?.: d ... y _ r. I ). {.,,,.' llllll[. D ' \\ h e \\\\. ;t !)1! ! % - fl:t ill't > ill t'i nllst rlit t 'i slj ju rltiit,, g il p f}?, ,l ,f'. l d, - l _l 5 _x ~6 e l l k k%k , k ll l l f f %(* ll lll{ ' f [l llll jf' (If 'j,' { { ' f k' J. R U a. \\ ll lilr % llk'!i :lli M JiplH :lt h q: l-file >d ti;l air alie'r ( It it dier l, 5 .g %g .f.f # ;- ,.',.f. [ 12 1 5 1. utuier t!m.\\tonur Ein rg\\ .\\ c t ut I M t. as 2 e. .s.;e.- a llie'lHlt'tl. Milidi rs > J u irl i r, tin-(lal;nllsslpli sh3[llrjpl;nje ... <.4_
- ',. N [
.i .s 11 hut not he hinited to. the -a n, r \\ aluations of t he li. p%. a l. g. lf f [(- g'{>j ll g((j { \\ { j' g { g { \\' w l'I' f I % 1 f [ I fl I('{ ' %% j'l 'l ll j fl'( l E' h-lk f f h* f' lh l ll [4s %l'l' ll g [- 4 g s 9 F.... b O
- f. ".
% \\:. z.=.,. L Ts.c...---'. i ' in of on-.\\o :nni pr, pare t h. report remurni h\\ a,secth,n . m.: 3 lI !! b \\ ! ill t lls '( ('i Ii l[l l -c !.' .,2-t ..~ e ..s 21 SH li Ni t hiah a ut hiiri/ed t ai he a pproprlated under $. '.1,...,. -[;. d.' - o . e r. - ) m h,- y 4 i 22 t lll s .\\ Fi l'.a i ist i~# i) i)\\ tlp ( lagitl j s, y i[l ti, i jijirgig,. 3ggg '_ ~',. u + 1 .,.,t eJ,.j _. 4 31)ll1 ' re' h a s e-s i! Fatiltrat'l!\\i-B a!k r re ;li ti:g j re uli t}p. a n.j. , j ij, b,. f,$ [.. p .f
- n... ' ;i,-,,
[ '. 5c f, Oa. ,1* [."
- g,
' '. ~. f <x p-.,.
- .v, 4 ;,'
s. d' i._',.g, 9 -c' g, .s.- /, D, ~, < *.. g- ' T. =
- c. -
M- .c :..,, e r.- a. g <y'- -;. ? - ....,~ cy. .s c
- w....-
.. - :' j . 9 Il 1:. -, . QG,.__ . y * ;-- s- +., d,, h (. g, .. ~
17 1 dent at the Three.\\lile l<laint Nuclear Iteactor Ninnhered _' 2 into the Susquehanna Itis er or its watershed. = l'assed the lion <e of ltepre-entatis es Nos eniher >.19s i .\\ t t e < t : EI) All'NI) l II E NSil.\\ W..Ill. ( '/, rl. Ik W. It u stos n ( 'o u.in. Ih p u ty l 'Ir vl. m M E R 3il 5 ,a mB4 = =5 73 = 7_ m 4 I ? n,< l
e*.. ~ g. ;.- - >y .. i ' ::- ; W:S'... ~m +, . c... ,. _ '. }...::c c c > J- ' '. =-.s-a
- y. _+.:.s upy,,-f9:t,......+;y:4;.y.(; _ 4 ; _.,.,.[,..,
K... ' Calendar No. 370 T'T H. R. 2330 1 1 AN ACT T. a.m r appropruoion-to ihe % b ir nec mi fors t 'onmuon m m m orda nce u.t h. i t o n N1 m the \\ t on ar l'n res \\iI I!O1 a-
- i me nif e d.i n d
.i .<rn.n mG.i 'he 1:ncrcs !!ror ga n ua t o in \\,7 of ! 1 G l..i-imrnde of ind hit ist her purpo e b. r u nt u i r \\...,unin i'- ? i:. ..i o. o l l I l x; 4, > 3 s.g;y._g +l-..y,u,; y,;.. - ;. ;, _,-,.2.,y,;y i, ;A,., : ~.16.. - -... 2 ,...,. (;, - 7.~. : : ; ;4, ;.,. a,.g 3 3.. ', ,..q,,, a.:
- ,,.e,.
- 2. -
=- ,c. ..k _ _.?y: lf ; c :,l; [ l .. k. 'Ql.- ~ ' '\\ l; .:) [ - ..,,.y... . 4.,,.. u.,. .l j;l g ,,..a._ .. ; :w. 4,.. - ...n.., .,.,.1+ ,_.,y..,H '~.,..,.,.. * ...e . + ,y llL - j_. g, x .a
- ,.,.,,r'.h_,
[, 'T, d g' ... i...x, (,.. ..h.', eb.?
- b'1
' }. .?[ f'
- ,5 w
e ,-... s c a- . e n. y . g.- r. p,,. '3- .g. c .y 4,.h, ,,g. \\. y.;. r. + 4 ;. _.., ~,., g y,. +.
- 9. i,..
+- + '. - y _ - ,.. ' f r <e g ,l, y. 3 a t +-. ' 4 \\,p-~ ,g_.. x _,_ q .,s,.., y,, _ t-
- l h
POf October 19,1381 CON RESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H L135 hi The SPEAKER pro tempore. The provide maintenance, security. Information. Last. Mr. Chairman, as a memorial question is on the motion offered by interpretation. janitorial. and a!! othcr serv. to the late President Kennedy, the the gentlen.an from Kansas (Mr. ices necessary to the norperforming arts Center has welcomed nearly 22 million $*,hrj visitors, and is now classified as one of d = Guen!AN) that the House suspend ng A the rules and agree to the resolution the most popular tourist attractions in (H. Res. 202), as amended. With the adoption of that language the Nation's Capital. Vistors' services I T Co The question was taken (and two-pm by W Pad SeMee inch t eh d ' e r nt t thirds having voted in favor thereof), U P*" " UI " U I" U * *" r the rums were suspended and the reso-a Performing Arts Center and as a two slide projection shows, "and roof-lution, t.s amended, was agreed to. Presidential memorial simnar to the top tours. Additional visitors services The title was amended so as to read Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson are provided by volunteers from the Memorial and that those so. called "Resclution expressing the sense of nonperfor' ming arts functions compa-Friends of the Kennedy Center who y, the Ecuse of Representatives that the Adm!mstrator of the Federal Aviation rable to other Presidential memorials are responsible for conducting the tours and operating the souvenir Administration should submit to the ou]nt stands. The services provided by the b app ay ent. eq 3-Committee on Science and Technology acts of the Congress have amended Friends of the Kennedy Center are g a preliminary system and subsystem provided free of charge. that subsection to provide funds decriptien and a projection of fund-through fiscal year 1981. H.R. 3377 hir. Chairman, the John F. Kennedy i. ing requirements with respect to the modernization and replacement of the would provide authorization through Center for the Performing Arts is the Federal Aviation Admmistration air the fiscal year ending September 30 sole living memorial to the late Presi-1982. In the amount of $4,544,000, or dent Kennedy. This legislation is j trnffic,, control en route computer for 1 additional year. clearly in the national interest; it will i system. Mr. Chairman. In 10 years of oper. enable us to maintain the Center as a A motion to reconsider was laid on ation, tue Kennedy Center has gained fitting memorial for millions of Ameri-the table. International recognition as one of the cans and for visitors from all parts of most successful performing arts insti. the world. Last, the amount of AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NONPER-tutions in the world. Its record of ar. $4.544.000 requested in this legislation FORMING ARTS FUNCTIONS tistic, educational, and public service is identical to that requested in Senate - I FOR THE KENNEDY CEN n.x programing documents how well the bill, S.1209. which is at the Speaker's q ( Mr. FARY. Mr. Speaker, I move that Center has succeeded as a living me. desk, and further, identical to those the House resolve itself into the Com-morial to the late President Kennedy, funds requested by the administration The record set, thus far, by the Ken. in its budget request to the Congress. S of the no or h co s de nedy Center is indeed worthy of those In conclusion. I would like to com-h words spoken by President Kennedy mend the chairman of the Committee which are now carved into the river on Public Works and Transportation, appr a lo t te o facade of the Center: the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. h Interior for services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of the I look forward to an America thich will HoWARD); and the ranking minority l I' [ reward achies ement in the Arts as we member of the full committee. -the l' d p John F. Kennedy Center for the Per-reward achievement in business or state-gentleman from California (Mr. CLAU-n forming Arts. and for other purposes. craf t. I look forward to an American which SEN); and the ranking minority F The SPEAKER pro tempore. The will steaduy raise the standard of artisue ac. i h. member of the subcommittee on [ question is on the motion offered by complishment and shich will steadDy en-7 the~ gentleman from Illinois (Mr. large cultural opportunities for all of our public buildings and grounds, the gen. 1: citizens. And I look forward to an America tieman from Minnesota (Mr. STANCE-6 FARY)' motion was agreed to f The thich commands respect throughout the LAND), for their time and effort spent [ m rar comrrrr or rur hotr c$1Nion a e oc " r Accordingly the House resolved Since its opening, the Kennedy [ itself into the Committee of the Center has focused on b oad national O 1245 Whcle House on the State of the participation in the performing arts. Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as I g Union for the consideration of the b!11, Its performances and attendance fig-he may consume to the chairman of H.R. 33 4, with Mr. GuCKMAN in the ures since 1971 total more than 9,000 the Committee on Public Works and per man es, with audiences exceed-Transportation, the gentleman from f Clerk read the title of the bill. j ing 14 million. = AR ant t New Jersey (M.r. HoWARD). l l yfe Mr. Chairman, under section 4 of its g (Mr. HOWARD asked and was given I authorizing legislation, signed by permission to revise and extend his re-pensed with. r President Eisenhower in 1958, the marks.) h III no (
- r. F RY wi rcg Ze e
u th u e-ran res ns - want to commend the gentleman from a for 30 minutes and the gentleman i 1 k from Minnesota (Mr. STANGELAND) will 1 ' D DU Illinois (Mr. FARY), chairman of the d I i e be recognized for 30 minutes. I[u'rin Subcommutee e Pubhc Mdings and , !j the p year, the enned The Chair recognizes the gentleman oun or a ersW in presenb j Center allocated more than $2 million from Illinois (Mr. FARY). I"O "U raised from privste sources to carry Mr. FARY. Mr. Chairman I yield I also want to commend the gentleman l _y., p gm da by o 7 myself such time as I may consume. from California (Mr. CLausEN), the access to the Center and its activities. ranking minority member on the full ) ess p Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3377 amends committee, and the gentleman from t the John F. Kennedy Center Act to Private funding contributed signifi-4 (b [ authorize appropriations in the cantly to extensive programing for Minnesota (Mr. STANGELAND), the = amount of $4.544,000 to the Secretary young audiences at the Center and ranking minority member on the Sub-N -o of the Interior for services necessary around the country and made possible committee on Public Buildings and to the nonperforming arts functions of a calendar of free events throughout Grounds, for their support and hard h 34 -:. p f, the John F. Kennedy Center for the the year, including symposia, lectures, work on this legislation. .1 L fiscal year ending September 30. 1982-theater and musical performances, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3377, author- ]i . Section 6 of the John F. Kennedy and exhibitions. During the past year, ! zing $4,544.000 to the Secretary of In-g = Center Act, as amended, provides 478 free public service events were pre. terior to carryout nonperforming arts J .g 1 tha*e sented at the Kennedy Center. Audi. functions at the John F. Kennedy The Secretary of the Interior, acting ence attendance for these events to. Center for the Performing Arts for !l {,s(,,3d [ through the National Park Service, shall taled approximately 200,000. the fiscal year ending September 30, ( [O h \\ y
__....y..._ . H 7436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Ocfober 19,13sf 1 1982. is virtually identical to S.1209 flationary pressures we have experi-forming Arts, and for other purposes. currently pending on the Speaker's enced over the past year. Recognizing had come to no resolution thereon. 3 desk. The funds contained in both the importance of adequate mainte-measures are the same as those re-nance for this National Arts Center quested by the administration in their and Presidential memortal. the House GENERAIMVE budget submission to the Congress. Public Works and Transportation Mr. FARY. Mr. Speaker. i ask unant. Further, such funds are minimal in Committee approved this bill sith mous consent that all Members may j = order to keep this memorial to a overwhelm'ng bipartisan support. Ad-have 5 legislative days within which to former President operating at the ditionally, the Office of Management revise and extend their remarks on the same quality level as other monu. and Budget has stated that this bill bul just considered. ments and memorials in the Nation's complies with President Reagan's The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 9 Capital. budget. t there objection to the request of the i The Kennedy Center functions as a I would like to emphasize that this gentleman from Illinois? Center for the Performing Arts, a me-legislation deals. specifically, with the There was no objection. morial in honor of the late President issue of providing the National Park Kennedy, and a faculty for lectures. Service with the needed funding for "= meetings. and civic activities. The first regular janitorial services and upkeep. AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS two functions are primary. The Center maintenance. security, and tourist in. FOR THE NUCLEAR R,EGULA. has become an important showcase for formation functions for the center. TORY COMMISSION j the performing arts in America and Other issues that have previously been Mr. UDALL. Mr. Sxaker. pursuant has added immeasurably to the life of associeted with the Kennedy Center to the provisions of House Resolution Washington. are not ddressed in this legislation 217. I more that the House resolve i Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy Center and shouc lot be confused with the itself into the Committee of the is an integral part of the Washington need to provide this essential funding. scene. Tourists have made the Center I urge all Members to support ILR. Whole House on the State of the i e one cf the busiest sightseeing attrac. 3377. Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropri. tions in Washington. and over 20 mil-e Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman. I ations to the Nuclear Regulatory Com-Lion tourists have now visited and would just like to echo the sentiments toured the Center. Visitation at the of my distinguished colleagues on the mission in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as Center for 1980 was 4.5 million and is Public Works and Transportation amended, and section 305 of the E projected to reach 5.2 mullon in 1982. Committee and urge all Members of Visitors' services are provided by vol. the House to support this legislation Energy Reorganization Act of 19'l4 as
== unteers from the friends of the Ken. authorizing funds for the nonperform-unended. and for other purposes. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The nedy Center who are responsible for ing arts functions of the Kennedy conducting the tours and operating Center. As has been previously men-question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. the souvenir stands. tioned. the Kennedy Center is one of UDAu.). It is apparent that President Kenne-the most visited tourist attractions dy's vision and interest in the arts are here in our Nation's capital. Mu11ons The motion was agreed to. being shared by a growing number of of people from around the world have ,,,_ m i citizens an over the Nation for the cul-come to Washington to see this spec-Accordingly the House resolved tural activities which it provides. It is tacular. living mer'2orial to the late itself into the Committee of the in the vital interest of us all to main. President Kennedy. Since this is such Whole House on the State of the tain the integrity of this magnificant a vital part of our national heritage. it nI " the conside on of th b = IMng memorial is important that we do all in our R2 0 I urge my colleagues to support ILR. power to maintain this me norial for ch g: 3377. iuture generations. Clerk read the title of the bill. 5 Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. Chairman. H.R. 3377 is a very stra!ghtforward The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the -=- I yield myself such time as I rcay con-authoriation bill providing an esti-rule. the first reading of the billis dis. sume. mated 34.5 million for the ongoing pensed with. (Mr. STANGELAND asked and was nonperforming arts functions of the The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 3 given permissior. to revise and extend center. such as routine maintenance. UDAu.) will be recognized for 15 min. 3 his remarks.) g upkeep and interpretative services, utes; the gentleman from New Mexico Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. Chairman. For the reasons I have mentioned, it is (Mr. LUJAN) will be recognized for 15 j as ranking Repubucan on the Public my hope that all of my colleagues lend minutes; the gentleman from New Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee. their support to this legislation. By so York (Mr. Orrrwcr.a) will be recog-a I rise in strong support of H R. 3'.77 doing, an important tribute to Prest. nized for 15 minutes and the gentle-legislation authorizing appropriations dent John F. Kennedy will be pre, man from California (M2. MooRHr.AD) j for services necessary for the nonper-served.e win be recognized for 15 minutes. forming arts functions of the John P. Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. Chainnan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman Kennedy Center for the Performing I have no further requests for time. from Arizona (Mr. UreAu.). Arts here in Washington;D.C. and yleld back the balance of my time. Mr. UDALL, Mr. Chairman. I yield This measure would authorize fund-Mr. FARY. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 6 minutes. ing for essential. nonperforming arts back the balance of my time. (Mr. UDALL asked and was given functions for the Kennedy Center Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com. permission to revise and extend his re-during this current fiscal year. In his mittee do now rise. marks.) remarks. the distinguished chairman The Inotion was agreed to. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. I am of our subcommittee has eloquently Accordingly the Committee rose; pleased that today the House is giving pointed out that these services and and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. AL-consideration to a bill authorizing functions. Including normal mainte-r.XANDr.R) having assumed the chair. appropriations for the Nuclear Regu. nance. upkeep and security, must be Mr. OUCKMAN, Chairman of the Com-latory Commission for fiscal year 1982 J performed to preserve this important mittee of the Whole House on the and fiscal year 1983. The Udall-Din-National Arts Center and living memo. State of the Union, reported that that gell-Lujan Broyhul substitute bill flal to the late President Kennedy. committee, having had under consider. (H.R. 4255) is a fsir and timely com. The legislation we are now consider-ation the bill GLR. 3311), authorizing promise that deserves prompt legisla. ing will provide for a very modest in. appropriations to the Secretary of the tive action. crease over fiscal year 1981 funding Interior for services necessary to the Deliberately. the substitute bill does levels and is needed to cover escalating nonperformir.g arts functions of the not address many of the tough nuclear costs for these services due to the in. John F. Kennedy Center for the Per-policy issues at hand; that is not the l
g..r-s m.,,, t.,- # -.m. s .~ m, . -., w.. .,s .mg. g g.s. .,, 3 7 43 h October 19,19S1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 7437 t p purpose of the authorization process. of full power temporary operating 11-The purpose of the authorization Separate nuclear policy legislation is censes (TOLS). Under the substitute. a bill before us today. therefore. Is to progressing through the committees temporary license would first be limit-provide the Commission with some of jurisdiction, and provides a more ed to no more than 5 percent of a reac-badly needed guidance and direction. appropriate context for debating nu-tor's rated full thermal power. Subse-The bill is an even. handed compro- -s i clear waste issues, proliferation policy, qucntly, and contingent upon utility mise that will give the Commission .) and licensing reform. application and Commission approval. and staff a clear congressional state-1 I hope, therefore, that my colleagues the plant could be allowed to operate ment about the course that should be will resist the temptation to offer at levels up to and including full followed over the.next 2 years; I amendments likely to impede the pas-power. namely, get on with the job, but with sage of this bill. The H.R. 4:55 compromise also pro-great caution. 4 Mr. Chairman. before summarizing vides the Commission and the nuclear Mr. Chairman, that concludes my 9 the key provisions in the substitute industry with some relief inom the opening remarks. There are several { bi!! let me briefly relate the history Court of Appeals November 19, 1980 points that I would like to develop in j that. lead to this compromise agree-decision in the Sholly case (Steren greater detail, so I ask unanimous con-Sholly, et at v. NRC et cl. U.S.C.A. sent to advise and extend my remarks. 3 ment. ~ On April 10,1981, the Interior Com-D.C. Cir., No 80-1691). The substitute Two yr.AR WTHOM1ATION 4 mittee favcrably reported its version till authorizes the Commissien to For the first time, and building upon ) of H.R. 2330. The Energy and Com-issue license amendments, effective an Interi r Committee initiative from merce Committee, af ter a sequential upon issuance, without holding a prior + th t ong 4 referral. reported a different version hearing, upon a determination that jon or'b tNfi a a ' ear 98 s of the bill on June 9.1981. - the amendment involves no significant and fiscal year 1983. The Interior The differences between the two hazards consideration. Committee believes that inherent in I committees were, in fact, quite sub-Mr. Chairman, let me close with this 2 year authorization is the poten-i stantial. For example, the Energy and some observations about the current tial for significant reduction in the Commerce Committee approved sever-state of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-l e ngressional legislative workload h al controversial changes in the licens-mission and the commere'al nuclear without impairing the ability of Con-ing process for nuclear power plants industry's no doubt that these are gress to exercise effectively its juris-t e f that had not been previously approved There i diction over the NRC and the regula-i by the Interict Committee. Subse-hard times for the nuc! car industry. tion of the commercial nuclear indus-quent to the fil!ng of their separate re-Electric utilitie s. among the Nation's try. Also, the proposed substitute will I ports, the committees worked together most capitalintensive industries, are promote more coherent fiscal planning e W to develop a mutually acceptable vehi-particularly vulnerable to today's high and program and policy continuity at cle for orderly House action; and, we interest rates. The situation is even the NRC. I believe we have found such a vehicle worse for those utilities in the midst Mr. Chairman,let me assure my col-l in the substitute bill ILR. 4:55. of building nuclear plants due to the leagues that the NRC authorization E The substitute includes a compro-financing of these projects with their levels for fiscal year 1983 contained in } mise agreement on all differences be-inherently large up-front capital costs. the substitute bill are not the result of f tween the two committees, thereby Visible manifestations of the nuclear precluding the need for any committee industry's financial straits ahound; pulling numbers from a hat. In testi-e amendments during this floor debate. Some utilities are canceling nucInr mony before the Interior Committee, the Commission described the follow-f The bill enjoys the support of the nu-projects already underway; new plar.'. ing internal budget process the agency 4 clear industry. Major environmental orders have not been placed for sever-y went through in developing its author-l and safe energy groups do not oppose al years and are not likely in the fore, f the substitute and are not lobbying for seeable future; utilities are deciding to ization request: y,. This procen included detailed office sub-changes in the licensing provisions. stretch out their reactor construction missi ns f r b th fiscal years (that is facal Tracking the recommendations of schedules; utility bonds are being l the Interior Committee. H.R. 4:55 au-down-graded; and, investor confidence h'Nc,* p7eygI,#*N'tNe 8 d e P. o te thorizes a total aporopriation for the in nuclear utilities is eroding, in part office submissions sere subjected to succes-g NRC of $485.873,000 during fiscal > ear because a $1 billion accident resulted site reviess by the Office of the Controller. 4 1982. and $513.100.000 during fiscal from a stuck open value. the Budget Review Group headed by the year 1933. This is the first time that Another consequence of nuclear's Deputy Director for Operations. the EDO t t the NRC authorization has been economic woes is the tendency to and the Commission pnor to submission to
- l the Office of Management and Budget. At placed on a 2 year cycle. The authori-blame the regulators for an inordmate each review step, the office directors sere zr. tion levels in the substitute bill are share of the pi ablem. While I am i
approximately 3 percent less than the among the first ta criticize the agency 'Sn" a t ad be the e ers of a rrp total amount requested by the Corn-when it fails to do its job. I think it is that proposed changes on their fiscal year mission in the Reagan budget for a bum rap to say as the administration 198' budget request might have on fiscal fiscal year 1982. and approximately 3.3 does that: year 1983. Through the EDO levei, equal at-percent less than the agency requested The Federal government has created a tention was given to both budget year and I, for fiscal year 1983. These percentages regulatory environment that is forcing the outyear estimates. translate into budget. cuts of many utuiti-s to rule out nuclear power as a The Conunission, hasing g ne through the 114.827.000 in fiscal year 1982 r.nd a source of new generating capacity. even process of deve opmg and reviewing a 2-year reduction of $16,900.000 in fiscal year when their consumers may face unnecessar-budget request, supports a 2-year authoriza-1983. 11y hf gh electne rates as a result. tion. The proposed substitute places re-This attitude can only make it more The Interior Committee recommend-il strictions on the amounts and uses of difficult for the Commission end the ed a 2-year authorization for the NRC funds available to the Commission for NRC staff to fulfillits regulatory mis-with full understanding that there will the nuclear data link prog *am; and, sfon. always be greater uncertainty with limits the availability of funds during While it is unfair to blame NRC for regard to the funding requirements of a fiscal year 1982 for the continuation of the preponderance of problems facing the second year of the 2-year cycle vis-q tests at the LOFT facility. the nuclear industry, the regulatory a vis the first year of the cycle. With Responding to the alleged possibility system is not working as it should. It this in mind, a reprograming proce-j that, at various times during the next seems to me that the agency to some dure is provided in the substitute bill couple of years, a few nuclear plant, degree may suffer from an identity that will enable the NRC and the Con-rnay sit idle awaiting completion of crisis resulting from the many con-g ess to work together to reallocate their NRC licensing proceedings, the fused and ccnflicting signals being authorized funds in the event circum-substitute bill will allow the issuance sent by its numero'us critics. stances change during the authoriza-i
1 713S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 19,1981 ( 8 tion period. In a'ddition. the option is the plant is in fact in compliance with tial to get the Commission mired in in. r alunys available to the Commission to the Commission's regulations. I have significant regulatory matters. request a supplemental authorization agr( ed to this measure because it An effect of the section 11 compro-of appropriations: and the Congress builds upon section 192 of the Atomic mise is to allow the Comrciscion to ap-can amend the authorizing legislation. Energy Act and contains safeguards in prove licensing amendmenu ' 1r nucle. E I F.ECOMMENDED FUNDING Lrm. the form of several requirements for ar power tractors, upon a..ctermina-Amidst current talk of the need for detailed Commission review before in-tion by the Commission t hat the additional massive cuts in Federal terim operation is allowed. amendment intoh es no signilicant l t spending H.R. 4:55 authorizes about 3 From the time NRC first requested huards consideration, in advance of i percent less each year than the authority to issue interim licenses, the public notice of that action. { amount recommended for NRC by undcrlying rationale has been that in In supporting this compromise provi- - President Reagan: I would have pre-the wake of the accioent at Three Mile sion. I subscribe to the view that NRC f(rred the larger 5-percent reduction Island, the NRC staff had turned from should exercise with great care the recommended by my Subcommittee on licensing to questions rnised by the ac-new authority to issue immediately ef-Energy and the Environment. I must cident. As a result, the licensing sched-fective license amendments in advance note that it is unfortunate that at a ules purportedly fell behind construc-of public notice. I urge NRC to employ > I i time of fiscal belt tightening imposed tion schedules and we were faced with as an operating presumption that primarily upon those of our citizens a situation where it was projected that whenever practicable public notice of least able to afford it, that the admin-plants would be ready to operate prior the illing of an araendment will be istration has seen fit to further subsi-to the projected ccmpletion date of given before the amendment is made dize the nuflear industry. the OL hearing. I think that experi-effective. In my view, this presump. The Commission's budget could ence is now showing that plants have tion should be especially strong in the readily be reduced another $20 million not been ready to operate on the an-case of license amendments, such as i were it not for their having to devote ticipated dates, and that there is little the venting of kryton gas involved in i effort to licensing of the Clinch River foundation to the fear of plants lying the Sholly case, that are in practice ir-breeder reactor. This expenditure idle prior to cornpletion of established reversible, because in such cases fall-could be bad enough if this technolog-licensing procedures. ure to provide rotice will effectively ical dinosaur were acutally going to be I simply am not as confident as the den
- members of the public their built and operated. But, President majority of my colleagues seem to be riglJ to any hearing.
Reagan's nuclear policy notwithstand-that the reactor safety situation is so The substitute bill directs NRCM ing, it is unlikely that Clinch River well in hand that we can afford to promulgate standards for determining will ever exist and, therefore, requir-shortcut the nuclear regulatory proc. whether or not an amendment to a 11-ing NRC staff to devo;e rescurces at ess. On the other hand, I am not in a cense involves no significant hazards this time to licensing this machine position to say unnecessary licensing consideration. In my view, the purpose rnerely compounds the folly. The ad-delays will never occur, and I conse-of these standards is to define a ministration's unwise focus on Clinch quently have worked with Chairman threshold determination of the nature River and reprocessing is but one of DmcEII. Mr. LUJAN, and Mr. BRoYHIt1 of the issues raised by the proposed y the many manifestations that the nu-to craft a comptoimse temporary oper-amendment, rather than attempting-cicar technology, whatever its poten-ating license provision subject to the to reach a conclusion on the merits of 5 tia is bey d rat al d ee n understanding that there will be thor-those issues. The latter conclusion y g are ough Commission review in every in. should result from, rather than pre-not relevant to our foreseeable needs. stance involving issuance of an OL cede. the hearing process in those Th? best course of action is to place prior to completion of hearings. cases in which a hearing is requestedf these technologies on the back burner I hope that the Commission, in car-umnR DATA WMK f~ while devoting primary ernphasis to insuring the safety and reliability of rying out its responsibilities under this Reiterating the strong position the current gereration of light water compromise will not succumb to what taken by the Interior Committee, the reactors. Similarly, the administra-may appear to it to be irresistable po-substitute bill (H.R. 4255) restricts Nu-tion's recent proposals for nuclear litical pressures. Nor should the Com-clear Data Link funding far below the plant licensing reform are unlikely to mission close its eyes to situations levels requested by NRC. Broad based have significant effect on those reac. where safety is not as assured as the criticism of the data link has been Commission believes it should be. The brought to my attention by members tors already online or in the licensing Commissioners and NRC staff should of the Advisory Committee on Reactor pipeline. I would hope the administra. tion will recognize these realities as it realize that in the event of an accident Safeguards, individual NRC Commis-develops more specific proposals. resulting in whole or in part from in. stoners, and the nuclear industry. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me-and I sufficient scrutiny by the NRC, the While I would be among the first to e am reiterating a point I have made Commission will be called to account. agree that NRC must have easy access 3 before-that for the next several years In such circumstances, the Commis-to any technical data that is needed to the most important and difficult tasks sion should expect little sympathy fulfill its regulatory mission-particu-facing the Nuclear Regulatory Com. from Congress or the general public larly in emergencies-the need for the j mission will be to assure the safety of for excuses, irrespective of any per-NDL, as currently envisioned by NRC son's current belief as to the wisdom staff, is poorly defined and ill con-i operating reactors and to issue licenses for the reactors under construction in of expediting the licensing process. ceived. During this time of massive I a manner that is efficient and takes snou.y escision across-the board Federal budget cuts, e the proper account of lessons of Three Section 11 of H.R. 4255 provides the $11.3 million requested for the + Mile Island, and other places. I NRC and the nuclear industry with data link is a prime area for b(It-tight-l The authorization levels and pol:cY relief from the court of appeals deci. ening at the NRC. j in H.R. 4255 provide a legislative sion in Sholly against NRC. In this de-Losoor+ win rrst rActury framework for achieving this objec-cision the court interpreted the Funds for tl'e continuation of tests tiv2. Atomic Energy Act (section 189a) to at the LOFT facility (loss-of fluid test vrueoRARY orERArmG WCEN$ts require the NRC, upon request, to facility) are limited to $30 million I have reluctantly supported the . hold a hearing on every operating 11-during fiscal year 11182 by the substi-compromise provisions in H.R. 4255 pense amendment application, even tute bill. This amount is about $15 mil-Chich will allow issuance of a tempo-when the Commission determines that lion less than the amount requested rary operating license (TOL) for a nu-
- he amendment entails no significant by NRC for that test program. The clrr powerplant prior to completion lazards consideration. The ruling re-LOFT provision in H.R. 4255 is identi.
cf hearings required by the Atomic verses nearly 20 years of NRC admin. cal to one reported by the Interior Energy Act on the matter of whether strative practice, and has the poten-Committee in its version of H.R. 2330,
j t 4 Octobcr IS,19S1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. H 7139 f and is based in large part on a recom-mately 1.000 people are now working agency's ability to monitor licensee's i mendation from the Advisory Commit-en LOl'r at the Idaho national engi-compliance with the Commission's reg. j tee on Reactor Safeguards (ACES). neering lab; and I am aware of the ulations on a day-to-day basis. I am The ACRS wrote in its February 1981 concern that the termination of LOFT pleased, therefore, that H.R. 4255 au-J repo-t to the Congress on the NRC will lead to the breakup of this ulua-thorizes in fu'.1 the increase requested safety research program in fiscal year ble human resource. While such a by NRC to cover personnel expenses s 1982: brain drain may occur. I suspect it can due to expansion of the resident in-We recommend therefore that the NRC be avoided by creative personnel man-spector proLram. Based on Interior test program in LOFT be terminated by the agement front an administration com-Committee osersight of this program, end of fiscal year 1982, and that the budret mitted to the revitalization and expan-I think there is merit to increasing to for fiscal year 19c2 not exceed $30.0 million. sion of commercial nuclear power. In two or three the number of resident erly t rmina on oIthe p any event, there can be no sufficient inspectors stationed at each site. il d i justification for dragging out the dura
- I must make clear, however, thr.t the at the same time make possible completion of the.lgnificant testa under consideration. tion of the LOFT test series at the ex-benefits of the resident inspector pro-(Fro.a NUREG-0751, page 19).
pense of highcr priority reactor safety gram do not compensate for my grow- 'l research. ing unease about the adequacy of I In a July 1981 report to the NRC Commissioners, the ACRS reaffirmed mucmer uwc quality assurance and control by NIIC -[f the view expressed eatlier in its report The substitute bill authorizes NRC and its licensees over nuclear plant to Congress and added a strongly held to issue reactor operating licenses. construction. view that there exists: under certain conditions, in the ab-That concludes my remarks, Mr. An urgent need to transfer the funds sence of federally approved offsite Chairman. I urge my colleagues to ap-thereby made available (that is, made avail. ernergency plans. This provis!on con-prove the substitute bill without de-able by the termination of the wPr test tinues the emergency planning and bilitating amendments. prcgram by the end of fiscal year 1982) to preparedness policy established by sec-The CIIAIRMAN. The Chair recoa-other safety research programs s hich tion 109 of Public Law 96-295 (the nizes the gentleman from New York would contribute much more eficettrely to fiscal year 1980 NRC Authorization (Mr. Orrmata), and will protect the ter safety. (From NUREG-0795, page Act), but extends the deadline for full time of the gentleman from New IIterest of keeping the legis-Just last month, another group of In t Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I technically competent nuclear experts lative history intact, I remind my col. e myse suell h as I may con-came to a conclusion about LOFT sim. leagues that Congress, spurred on by "U"'* Ilar to that reached previously by the recommendations of the major inquir-(Mr. O*ITINGER asked and was ACRS. This second group, known as les into the TMI accident, enacted in Elven permission to revise and extenci I the reactor safety research review Public Law 96-295 a provision requir. his remarks.) group, was established to report to the ing the existence of a federally ap-President's Nuclear Safety Oversight proved State emergency plan as a con-Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman,1 Committee. The review group, chaired ditloa for receiving a reactor operating rise in support of H.R. 2330, as amend-by Prof. Norman Rasmussen. made license. At the time this licensing re-ed by the substitute. I would like to the following comments in its final quirement was mandated, specific rec-commend my colleague, the chairman report: ognition was given the fact that a of the Committee on Interior and In-l The 14FT program has been a success in grace period should be provided to sular Affairs, the minority member of t, = that it answered satisfactorily the major State and local governments to up-my subcommittee, and the minority l' grade their existing plans. Also, addi-member of the full committee, for question of reactor safety for which it was designed, but it does not directly address tional time was needed for the Federal working out a successful compromise the key safety problems that are apparent today. The review group is reluctant to seg. Government to get its house in order on what was a number of fairly con-troverdal hs* gest termination of a facility with such a ca. to the point where NRC and the Fed-pable s'aff and one that represents a large cral Emergency Management Agency H.R.,.,330 was originally introduced capital investment. could effectively coordinate their ef-in the House on March 4 of this year But the expense of its operation leans to forts to establish criteria for accept-by the distinguished chairman of the the conclusion that it is no longer a cost-ef-able State and local plans, and then Committee on Interior and Insular Af-fective facility. It is unlikely to uncover any certify the adequacy of such plans. fairs, the gentleman from Arizona. As major new safety issue. The revier group N thel the intent of C introduced. H.R. 2330 provided the a' ryas h rfseat h re . and Y [nains, as clearly sta e Nuclear Regulatory Commission with are ba w needed, and for which the resourcei saved the conference report accompanying an authorization of appropriations for through phasing out TOFT should be ap. Public Law 96-295 that-fiscal years 1982-83. Although the bill was reported by the Committee on In-plied. (Report of the Reactor EsJety Re. (U)ltimately every nuclear plant will have search Review Group to the President's Nu-applicable to it a state emergency response terior and Insular Affairs with a sub-clear Safety oversight Committee. Septem. plan that provides reasonable assurance stitute text, It remained. in essence, a ber 1981 pase 11-2). that the public health and safety will not be simple 2 year authorization with an The review group concluded that the endangered in the event of an emergency at across the-board reduction in authori-LOFT program should be phased out such plant requiring protective action. zations, limitations on expenditures in an orderly manner. (From the Conference Report No. 96-1070 for the nuclear data link program and The substitute bill makes no state-, 28). the loss of fluid test facility, a direc-ment with regard to LOFT expen li-arsmut ansneros nocam tive on the interim consolidation of tures in fiscal year 1983. The fact that Finally, let me say a few words the Commission headquarters staff in H.R. 4255 is silent on the question of about the NRC's resident inspector the District of Columbia, and a prohl. LOFT expenditures in fiscal year 1983 program which the Commission has bition on the use of any funds author-ll means neither that the Interior Com. called the heart of its nuclear reactor ized by the bill for the actual decon-b mittee, nor the sponsors of the substi-regulation efforts. This relatively new tamination, cleanup, repair, or reha- !{, tute bill, have agreed that LOFT testa program is intended to place a full-bilitation of the Three Mile Island should be continued beyond fiscal year time NRC inspector onsite at each unit 2, nuclear power reactor. ] 1982. plant under construction; two inspec-0 1300 For myself, I think the LOFT pro-tors at each operating or preopera-gram has served a useful function tional site that has at least two units: Under the rules of the House H.R.
- V during the nearly 20 years it has been and, at least one inspector at each op-2330 was then sequentially referred to in progress. But now, the time has erating or preoperational site with one the Committee on Energy and Com-1 come for phasing out the test series by reactor. I am impressed that. resident merce on June 4,1981. The bill was or-j
} the end of fiscal year 1982. Approxi-inspectors significantly enhance the dered by the Committee on Energy g
= F , H 7440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 13,19s1 o-and Commcrec with an amendment in N RC's emergency planning regula-Act requires that the Commiss!on con-st: the nature cf a substitute. The report-tions regarding the question of wheth-duct a hearing on any amendment to a r cd bill restored the funds cut by the cr the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-license, even if the Commission deter. b\\ a gr. t = Ccmmittee on In'erior and Insular Af-sion,in the absence of a Federal Emer-mines that the amendment involves no si yr fairs, included a directive on the mter-gency Management Agency approved significant hazards consideration. It rt b im consolidr.ticn of the staff as well as State or local emergency preparedness should be noted that the authority h< 5 g a number of cecific directives on the plan, could issue an operating beense given the Commission to issue tuch ? b3 r use of funds r ffecting such issues as if it determines that there exists such amendments prior to a hearing by this the licencing process, emergency pre-a plan which provides reasonable as. s provisien daes not dispense with the I W r pardness p!ans, the Commission's surance that the public health and i safety goal, In.! the Commission's re-safety will not be endangered by the requirement that the hearing be held, ti In giving the authority to the Com. n< ( 1:. tion. ship with the Department of creration of the facihty. This section c Energy regarding the disposition of ra-restates the position Ccntained in sec-mission to issue and make immediately tr g c;oactive materials resulting frcm the tion 109 of Publ!c Law 90-29G by clari-effective license amendments which P E g eIcanup of the damaged Thrn Mile fying that the Commission does have Involve no significant hazard consid. rr Island Unit 2 nuclear reactor. Conse-the authority to make an independent cration. for the period of this aulhort- [ 11 h quently, the differences in the bill as determination, in the absence of a zation, the sponsors of this proposal P t reported by each committee were nu-plan approved by the Federal Emer-expect the Commission to construe ? F merous and substantial, gency Management Agency, that there this authority narrowly, not simply ? Despite the fundamental nature of does exist a plan, proposed by either because it prejudges a decis!cn under E k p the d:sagreements in the bill as report-the affected State or local government appeal but also because the suspension h A s ed by each committee, the House has or utihty, which provides reasenable of the requirements for notice and es-a [ before it today a compromise which assurances that the public health and pecially public hearings prior to the is-t j bas been agreed to by the chairmen safety will not be endangered by the suance of a license or an amendment I = b and ranking mincrity members of the qperation of the facility, could be a major abridgment of the e 2 h Committee on Interior and Insular Af. Section 11 cf the bill authorizes the c r fairs and the Committee on Energy ommission to use such funds as may ,d in s e thor sl C and Commerce and each committee s necessary to issue and make imme-the Commission under this provision is C r [ relevant subcommittee. This compro. 'ately effective amendments to a 11 e , an s d h th j (N t s ~ mise, introduced into the House as ense for a nuclear power reactor upon / t I ILR. 4255, resolves all issues in dis. the determination by the Commission exceptional cases, with notice and the Q i e 5 = agreement in the bill as reported by that the amendment involves no sig-opportunity for hearings, presumed to _a each committee and avoids the neces-nificant hazards consideration, and be the rule rather than the exception. l E sity of having each committee offer, as may do so in advance of the conduct The same principle is expected to i E separate amendments, each item in and completion of any required hear, applied with respect to the authority
- i I
disagreement, thus greatly facilitating ing and after notice to the State in given to the Commission under subsec-flo3r consideration of this bill. which the facility is located. The Com. tion 11(b), in that the Commission 1 b "he compromise provides a total au-mission is directed, when practicable, should operate on the assumption that 2 h tl orization of $485,873,000 for fiscal to consult with the State in which the notice of the filing of an amendment 4 f year 1982 and $513,100,000 for fiscal affected facility is located before the should be given before the amendment [ year 1983, which is approximately 31 issuance of an amendment, provided is made effective, and the instances million below the amount requeste that such consultation does not delay when notice is not given is to be the ogg -= E for fiscal year 1982 and approximatel: the effective date of any such amend. exception. This is particularly true in V E $17 million below the amount soughL ment, which, in all other respects, is to the case of license amendments, such e th4 k for fiscal year 1983. Most of this re-meet the requirements of the Atomic as the venting of krypton gas raised in - " " ~ ~ " 7 m { duction is to be absorbed by a reduc-Energy Act of 1954. The Commission the Sholly case, where the result is ir. tion in funding for the nuclear data is directed to publish in the Federaj reversible and where the failure to link program, which is to be limited to Register periodically, but not less fre. provide advance notice effectively de..U Wh = a prototype system until the Congress h has an opportunity to revier the need \\ quently than 30 days, notice of amend. prives the public of any right to object 4-ments issued, or propased to be issued, to or to appeal tre decision. Moreovu, q' N for a full scale system. This, however i which such notice is to include all the requirement that amendments be K,,* [ i is, in my opinion, a very promising \\ amendments issued, or proposed to be published in the Federal Register is to 4 system. The work on it ought to go jissued, since the date of publication of be the minimum notification require-i forward expeditiously under the au- ;the last periodic notice. The section ment, for the Commission and the ap-1 P thorization that is provided. The bill !also, specifices that certain informa. plicant are free to provide notice k also limits the funds availabic for the l tion is to be included ppfhe Copunis. through addRonal mechanisms which [ cperation of the loss of fluid test fa-i n'noih . M Ti h k serve the purpose of keeping the, s 9 cility. Funds are provided to the Com. Also added was a dir glblic f ully informed. j mission for the purpose of consolidat. Commission to promulgate within 90 (In regard to the requirements in; ing the headquarters staff offices in days from the effective date of the act, stabsection 11(c), relating to the pro-k y, the District of Columbia. < standards for determining whether a tr ulgation of standards for determin. F There are three provisions in the bill license amendment involves no signifi. irig when an amendment involves no g which deserve special consideration l]- E Section 8 authorizes the Commission l cant hazards consideration. This sec. significant hazards consideration,' it is 7 tion is a modification of a provision ckpected that the Commission will re-l j to use such funds as may be necessary l contained in the Committee on Energy /nernber that the function of suc = E to issue an operating license, including L and Commerce reported bill. ----sstandard is to assist the Commission in h a tempcrary operating license, in thei The quest!on of the Commission's deciding when an amendment will 1 absence of a State or local emergencyj authority to. issue and make immedi-take effect prior to the conduct of the preparedness plan which has been ap : ately effective license amendments required hearing. Under the provision, 5 proved by the Federal Emergency' which involve no significant hazards the hearing is still required to be held, J Management Agency, if it determines consideration was raised as a result of upon request, only in such cases the ni that there exists a State, local, or uti1J a decision by the U.S. Court of Ap-hearing will be held af ter the an:end. = E Ity plan which provides reasonable ase peals for the District of Columbia Cir-ment has been issued. The purpose of 'E E surance that pubUc health and safety cult,in Sholly against Nuclear Regula-the standard, therefore, is not to es. I is not endangered by the operation of tory Commission, as my friend, the tablish the criteria for decidir.g the l ~ the nuclear power reactor in questionj gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Uott.L1 issue raised by the amendment or to The purpose of this section is td has indicated. This decision held that judge khether the amendment should I [ clarify certain legal ambiguities in the' section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy be issued at all, but is tre:tead to con. 9 R i
g-r &.1 i:\\ n: L 7 I 'Odob/r 19,1BSI CON SS NA HOUSE II7441 stitute a threshold determination re-imited to only 5 percent of the reac-conduct or completion of any required garding the nature of the issues raised' tor's rated power level, is discrction-hearing. Thus, the standard to which by the proposed amendment. A deci-ary. The Commission decides when the Commission is ultimately account-sion of the merits of the issue is to the excerise of this authority is neces-able is, in itself, a deterrent against result from, rather than precede, the sary, and, as one of the sponsors of the potential abuse of the authority hearing itself. Moreover, any finding this provision I can state that I expect provided in section 12. by the staff regarding the question of the authority granted by this provi-A third point which should be noted whether a proposed amendment in-sion will be used rarely, if at all, and is the f act that the compromise limits volves a significant hazards considera-only in situations in which delay the initial temporary operating license i tion er not should not carry any con would otherwise occur in the oper-to a power level of only 5 percent of its i notation on the merits of the amend ation of a completed powerplant. This rated thermal capacity. Thus there ment. As with subsection 11(b), thi; provision is in response to a ternporary will be a cadual phase-in of the reac-i l the public to a hearing before the ap-provision should be implernented in t situation which resulted from the tor, and cperating at a power level manner which protects the right od need to divert staff attention away greater than 5 percent will require an from licensing acth*ities in order to amendment to the initial temporary j proval cf any license amendment comprehend the lessons from the acci-operating licence, thus requiring a fur-where the ef fects are irreversible. dent at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 ther Commission review. I should also Section 12 of the bill, as amended, nuclear power reactor, and to incorpo-note that, because of the extraordi-gives the Commission the authority to rate those lessons into the regulations nary nature of this authority, only the issue temporary operating licenses in governing the licensing and operation Commhsloners themselves kre expect-accordance with the provisions of sec-of nuclear power reactors. ed to exercise this authority and not tion 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of The time required to accomplish this the Commission staff. Moreover, it is 1954, except that such temporary op-objective took longer than expected. expected that, before exercising this erating license may be issued: First, in While this review was being conduct-power, the Commissioners wi? make advance of the conduct of completion ed, construction of planning nuclear i of any hearing required in section 192 powerplants continued With the result $u on complet o te deter $ or by section 189 of such act; and that it appeared that some power-mine that,in the absence of action by second, without regard to subsection plants would be finished and ready to the Commission under the authority I (d) of section 192 and the findings re-operate before the completion of the provided by this section, there will be quired by subsection (b)(3) of section licensing process. While there is clear-an actual delay in the initial operation 192. Any hearing held in connection ly a debate about the actual extent of of the plant. Such delay, in and of with the requirement of section 192 the anticipated delays and of the re-itself, does not constitute sufficient and the record of such hearing is te be sulting costs to stockholders and rate-gr unds for the exercise of this au. treated as part of and consolidated payers from the carrying and financ-thority, for the Commission must be with the hearing and record required ing charges accumulating while the re-able to determine that all the require-under section 189 whenever the Com-actor sits idle awaiting licensing, the ments for the issuance of a normal op-j mission determines that such consoll-potential of such an occurrence in a erating Ilcense, including all the find-i dation will reduce duplication and ex. number of instances required action to ings relating to the protection of the pedite the resolution of the licensing avoid such consequences. It is now proceeding. Any temporary license clear, however, frorn hearings held by public health and safety and the envi. ronment and the resolution of all site Issued pursuant to this section may in-the Government Operations Commit-specific safety issues have been met i titially authorize fuel loading, testing tee chaired by the gentleman from and that the facility is in compliance and operation of the reactor at a Connecticut (Mr. Morrm), that the with all applicable regulations. It power level which does not exceed 5 extent of the problem was overstated, should be emphasized that issuance of percent of its rated full thermal resulting from the Commission's tell-a temporary operating license in ad-power. The applicant may thereafter ance upon the applicants' projected vance of the conduct or completion of request an amendment to the tempo-date for the completion of construc-hearing does not obviate the re-rary operating 1; cense to operate at tion rather than an independent de-an{rement qu that full hearings be higher powcr levels, and the Commia. termination by the Commission. It o eM and he sion is given the authority to review now appears that in fact no plaats will {p,m , gp yatt s e u and approve such requests, be delayed. Nonethcless, delays in a sued diligently. I would like to emphasize that few instances may become unavoid-before this authority may be exer-able, and it is only in these instances Moreover, under the provisions of 'H cised, there have to be full safety re-when it is expected that the Commis, section 192, the Nuclear Regulatory H views and the ennronmental impact sion might exercise the authority pro. Commission is directed to suspend any i statement must be completed. vided under this section. Certainly, it temporary operating license whenever Section 12 of H.R. 4255 is based is not expected that the Commission it determines that the applicant is not upon section 6 of H.R. 2330 as report-will use this authority in regard to any pursuing the normal operating !! cense ed by the Committee on Energy and proceeding relating to the licensing of with duc diligence and vigor. Commerce. As a part of the compro-any reactor beyond the 11 identified in Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2330, as amend-i: mise, it was agreed that the Commis-the Commission's report as expected ed by the substitute, represents a rea-i sion's authority to issue temporary op-to experience possible delays. sonable co:npromise that respects the erating licenses would be limited ini-A second pctnt which needs to be interests and the concerns of both the i tially to authorizing only fuelloading, emphasized is that the criteria for is. Committee on Interior and Insular Af-testing and power operation at no suing a temporary operating license is fairs and the Committee on Energy more than 5 percent of the reactor's exactly the same as required for issu. -and Commerce, and I urge its passage. rated full thermal power, and that any ing a normal operating license. All of I would like to thank the chairman l operation at greater power levels the findings which must be made in of the Committee on Interior and In-J would require subsequent considera-regard to the granting of an operating sular Affairs, the gentleman from Ari-tion and determination by the Com-license must still be made in regard to zona (Mr. UDAu.) and the ranking mi-mission, in accordance, with the proce-the issuance of a temporary operating nority member of that committee, the dures and requirements of subsection license, and they must be made with gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. ta). And that is very important. the same degree of confidence. The LUJAN) for their leadership and coop-J Section 12 of the amended bill is an Commission will still be held to the eration in obtaining this compromise. J extraordinary provision, and it is es-same standard and, if challenged. Additionally, I would like to thank the sential that its scope be fully under-must be able to demonstrate in court, chairman of my own Committee on I stood. First, the authority to issue if necessary, that it made all the re-Energy and Commerce, the gentleman 4 a temporary operating licenses, even quired findings in the balance of the from Michigan (Mr. DmcEu.) and the 3 I' b
N H 7442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 19,1931 ( ; ranking minority member of the full higher replacement power cot:ts to amendments without prior notice if it i 9 committee, the gentleman from North consumers by the end of 1983, accord-determines that such amer.dments in, r Carolina, and the ranking minority ing to utility estimates. Another 57 voh'e no hazard to the pub!!c health member of the Subcommittee on plants scheduled to be completed by and safety. This provision would oser. E ( Energy Conservation and Power the the mid-1980's n.ay be caught in turn a decision last year by the U.S. ( gentleman from California Gir. Moor. NRC's ** pancaked" licensing logjam Court of Appeals for the District of a unn) for their contribution and coop. unless the temporary licensing author. Columbia Circuit, Sholly against NRC, 5 eration. ity is granted. which held that a public hewng must The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Additional licensing reforms will be held ~ prior to issuance of an amend. n gentleman from New York (Mr. Or. remove non-safety-related technical ment to an operating license even if t TmcsR) has expired, roadblocks to more efficient Federal the Commission determines that it The Chair recognizes the gentleman regulation of nuclear powerplants. would involve no hazard to the public. i ' from California air. MoonarAD) for 15 Another very important part of this The NRC has recommended legislative minutes. legislation is contained in section 13 of relief along the lines of this bill to pre-w Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman. I H.R. 4255. Section 13 sets up an inde-clude the problems that would be cre. H yield myself such time as I may cen-pendent advisory panel representing ated if Sholly were allowed to stand. sume. the public, industry, and the States to Second, section 12 of ILR. 4255 Mr. Chainnan. I rise in support of study the licensing process with an would permit the NRC to authorize H.R. 2330 as amended by the language emphasis on streamlining the licensing temporary operation of a nuclear contained in H.R. 4255. process. This panel is required to work power plant, once all safety and em1 This legislation authorizing vital with the NRC in order to submit con-ronmental reviews are finished and all funding for activities undertaken by clusions and recommendations to the that remains outstanding is comple-a the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Congress. The French and the Japa-tion of the final public hearing at the e consensus bipartisan bill. H.R. 4255 nese can license a nuclear powerplant end of the procedural process in-can be considered as a significant first in less than 7 years. It takes us about volved. It ts important to note that Y step in strenmhim the !! censing pro-twice that time. Obviously there is NRC is not required to grant such in-cedures of nuclear powerplants con-room for improvement. We can do the terim operating licenses. sistent with necessary safety consider-job quicker without sacrificing safety These two provisions taken together ations. and health concerns. Like many areas should go a long way in granting the j H.R. 4255 among other things pro-of regulatory reform, this legislation NRC the authority to adopt a reason-H vides for interim Ucenses subject to gives the Congress an opportunity to able approach in its licensing proce-7 t health and safety requirements. Inter-make necessary regulation much more dures without eliminating public hear-im licenses. Where appropriate, will efficient. The fruits of our labor will ings and envrionmental reviews. At a play a significant role in solving the certainly be reduced power bills, re-time when French and Japanese re-i serious backlog of the licensing proc-duced consumption of foreign oil, and quire nuclear plant leadtimes of about ess at the Nuclear Regulatory Com-a more rational and efficient use of 7 years as contrasted to the 12 to 15 mission. DOE and the utility industry scarce capital. I urge my collealpes to years that seems to be reqaired in the calculates this provision wiD save elec. support H.R. 4255. United States, these provisions are tric consumers up to $2 billion in re-placement power costs and over D 1315 necessary and reasonable. I might also Ml 200.000 barrels a day in cil. equivalent At this time, Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 note that these provisions are in line fuel con mmption. minutes to the gentleman for Illinois with the President's October 8 nuclear The NRC is authorized-but not re- (Mr. CoBeoRAm. Power statement. l quired-to issue temporary operating (Mr. CORCORAN asked and was Mr. Chairman. I strongly urge the licenses to delayed plants only where given permission to revise and extend t of i e language e taine endronmental and safety reviews have his remarks.) been completed, such as the staff Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman. I 2330. sa'ety evaluation report, environmen. Mse tn strong support of H.R. 2330, the The CHAIRMAN. What the Chair tal impact statement, and Advisory fiscal years 1982 and 1983 authoriza-will do at this time,if it is satisfactory, Committee on Reactor Safeguards tion for the Nuclear Regulatory Com. is recognize the gentleman from Call-report. mission. This 2-year authorization leg-fornia Gir. CLAUsEN) for 15 minutes, The temporary operating license islation authorizes approximately $1 representing the minority on the Inte-j rray be issued in advance of the final bi1 Hon and is slightly under the ad. rior and Insular Affairs Committee. operating license hearing, but not minstration request. ILR. 2330 was re. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I. j a prior to completion of pubbe participa. ported by the Interior and Insular Af. yield myself such time as I may con. tion on the em*iromental impact state. fairs Committee on April 10 and by sume. ment. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the Onergy and Commerce Committee Gir. CLAUSEN asked and was given i 3 the final operating license hearing is on June 9. Agreement an a compro. permission to revise and extend his re-7 g F discretionary in uncontested cases and mise bill by the leadership of the two marks.) l public hearings are held at the con. committees was indicated on July 23 Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise struction permit stage. With the introduction of ILR. 4255, to present a statement on behalf on g The temporary operating Ucense which is essentially the language that myself and the ranking minority j must initially limit operation to fuel the House now has under considera. member, the gentleman from New loading or 5 perecnt power levels, but tion. Mexico Gir. LUJAN), as well as the may authorize step by step progres. More important than the funds au. cther minority members of the Interi. s!on to higher power levels upon re. thorized by this bill, ILR. 2330 incor. or and Insular Affairs Committee.1 M quest to the Commission on a case-by. potates several important policy initia. generally want to commend an of case basis, as under current procedures tives, and I commend the two commit-those that have been involved in both a for final operating Ucenses. tees for the adoption of this bipartisan of the committees for the coordinated j j Te:nporary operating ilcenses would compromise. As a member of the and comprehensive effort they have be subject to such limits, durations. Energy Conservation and Power Sub-put forth to bring about what I think d and conditions as NRC may impose. committee and the Energy and Com. is a very satisfactory compromise. NRC's temporary authority to issue rnerce Committee. I would especially Mr. Chairman. I rise today in sup-i such licenses expires September 30, like to urge the support of my col. port of ILR. 4255, the proposed au. 3 1983. leagues for this bill because of two im. thorization bill for the Nuclear Regu. 3 Eleven plants may request tempo. portant provisions. latory Commission for fiscal years 7 rary Ucenses in order to avoid 63 First, section 11 of H.R. 4255 would 1982 and 1983. This bill is the result of months of delay and over $1 billion in allow the NRC to grant routine license a considerable amount of negotiation 3 1 E s w
..:.=__- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 117443 h h Octobc/19,1BS1 between members of the Interior Com-Mr. MOORHEAC. Mr. Chairman. I carefully and see to it that its con-E mittee and the Energy and Commerce ykld such time as he may consume to structive proposals are implemented. Committee. It includes key prosisions the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cot-Because I am so concerneo about the b q on various matters which were ad-u ns). reactor licensing delay problem. I dressed in the two different versions (Mr. COLLINS of Texas asked and would like to focus first on the magni-5 2 of the original bill, ILR. 2330, which was given permission to revise and tude of the problem and then briefly 3 these cons itees reported in April extend his remarks.) discuss in more detail some of the rea-7 and June resh ' rely. Mr. COLLINS of Texas. Mr. Chair-sons for the malfunction of the nucle-II.R. 4255 contains a 3 percent re. man. I rise in support of this Nuclear ar regulatory structure. E Y duction in funding below the amount Regulatory Commission authorization There are 68 nuclear plants operat,- b i requested in the administration *s legislation because it makes strong ing today that produce 12.000 strides toward licensing and regulatory 3 budget for both 1982 and 1983. It con, megawatts, or 12 percent of the U.S. reforms that are essential. The U.S. electrical output in 1980. Nuclear gen-4 tains a $30 million limitation on the domestic nuclear industry is moribund U funding of tests at the loss of fluid eration actually exceeded generation in large part because of our ad ersar I test facility (LOFT) during fiscal year g ( 1982. You will note that H.R. 4255 is { alls Tintk more plants are now being build or c erso E-la e proposals for change in ILR. 2330 possess low power licenses while 11 l g silent on fiscal year 1983 funding. Var. tous recommendations have been made should begin to remedy our current more are h preconstruction stages. =.- i by such groups as the Advisory Com-situation where 12 to 13 years are re. The Department of E.nergy projects .L mittee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) quired to license a nuclear plant in the that 22 percent of the Nation's elec-to terminate these tests. I think it United States while only 7 to 8 are tricity will be nuclear-generated by e would be more prudent to wait unt!1 needed to do the same work in Europe 1990. Because of the energy resource that time draws closer to make a deci-that this nuclear capacity represents, E and Japan. sion on termination. We have made a Consumers have been burdened and we are behooved to strangle it with E major investment in the LOFr tests inflation has been fueled by the inter-regulatory delays that serve no safety E and further testing may be necessary minable delays that the l'ederal nucle-or environmental purpose. Another EL in the years ahead. I am amaaed at the ar regulatory structure fosters. It can reason for getting rid of excessive E large number of personnel involved, cost a utility, and therefore consum-delay is that each day a plant is kept f but I am not ready to close down this ers, up to $320.000 a day for as long as out of service, we burn more foreign f I important operation. the company has to keep a completed oil than we would otherwise have to. Funding for the proposed nuchar plant out of operation because of bu. In 1979, we backed out 1.92 million data link program has been reduced reaucratic and institutional delays. In barrels of oil per day th'at would have from $11.3 million to $200,000. I agree Texas, the Comanche Peak unit 1 can cost consumers $21.25 billion. By 1990, with this major reduction and urge expect a 10-month delay during 1981 nuclear output will back out 3.7 mil-the Commluion to review its other ex-and 1982. As a result of these kinds of lion barrels of crude oil a day. There is penditures to see where other cuts can delays, the electricity consuming wide consensus that electrical genera. g a be made to overfunded programs. public has had to bear $2.5 billion in tion must move to baseloading with il ILR. 4255 contains authority which costs directly related to licensing coal and uranium through the rest of will allow the Commission to issue a delays, this century. If we are, as it has been ^ temporary operating license (TOL) to This NRC legislation seeks to deal prcjected, to have 36 percent of new i ? = I a nuclear powerplant prior to the com* with this licensing problem I am so generation capacity be nuclear and 48 pletion of hearings on the question of concerned about in three important percent be coal, we must move ahead whether or not that plant is in comptl-ways. First, it allows the NRC to issue with licensing reforms such as these in ance with the Commission's regula-interim operating licenses to plants H.R. 2330. g tions. NRC has requested this authori-even though the entire hearings proc-I want to share with my colleagues y g ty and we have been assured that it ess is incomple;e. This is an improve-some of my impressions of the causes will not be employed unless absolutely ment directed at eliminating delays of Itcensing delays. Look first at the necessary and unless all safety consid-caused by endless hearings even situation we now have. Because of r ( g erations have beera taken into account. though all er.vironmental and safety NRC redirection of staff resources and g Another provision in* ILR. 4255 reviews have been finished. other idiosyncrasies of our systtm. grants NRC the authority to approve Second, the authorization modifies there is a licensing backlog that will g an amendment to a nuclear power re-the effects of Sholly against the Nu-delay the startup of 13 plants for as ~ g actor license in advance of public hear. clear Regulatory Commission decided much as 90 months. This delay will ings where that amendment involves last year by the U.S. court of AppealsColumbia. ' cost consumers upwards toward $8 bil-no significant hazards consideration. here in the District of lion in replacement fuel and carrying 'h This provision will relieve NRC of the Sholly would have required the NRC costs. Another 11 plants which have [ unreasonable requirements imposed to hold a hearing upon request on any sought construction licenses and will l on it by the court of appeals decision li~ nse amendment even though it likely be delayed as well.
- =E last year in the case of Steven ShollY. dom not involve a safety.related issue.
in a statement this 3. ear before Con-m et al. against NRC, et al. The court When you consider that the NRC has held that NRC must hold a hearing allowed over 1.600 license amendments,$c'ur'e e erg rna e the tat me j whenever requested, even when the during the last 4 years where no safety that-Commission determines that the hear-issue was concerned. It becomes clear m ing involves no significant hazards that unless Sholly is modified we will It is essenual that this country find means 3 to more sensibly and prudently !! cense com- = consideration. H.R. 4255 also directs be in an acute delay quagmire that mndal schar naews. NRC to promulgate standards for de-makes the present backlog look mild. = termining whether or not an amend-Third, the NRC will be required to We find ourselves trying to get out = ment involves no significant hazards conduct a study to determine how the of this licensing mess because we have - E consideration. time required for licensing can be cut a system that provides incentives for E n Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I urge in half. I normally look askance of dcIny. The licensing procedt;re consists i the passage of H.R. 4255 and hope my studies because they are an excellent of numerous appeals, tiers of authori-colleagues will not attempt to load it way to get nothing done. In this case, ty, multitudes of hearings, many of E up with extraneous amendments to-however, we need to make a concerted which relate only peripherally to reac-rnorrow. effort to streamline what is an admit-tor design and safety, and public inter-Mr. UDALL Mr. Chairman. I have tedly cumbersome and almost unwork-ventions. When this obfuscatory struc-1 - no requests for time and I reserve the able system. Congress should monitor ture is combined with the high capital
- E balance of my time.
the progress and results of this study and interest cost associated with nu- !l " a lt t m
r; Il7444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 19, Jggy O. clear construction. an untenable cir-The reason for the frustration we terim operating license proposal is a att cumstance is created. have experienced with public partici. " remedy without a reason." The nuclear regulatory mechanism pation should be clear. It was thought, That full committee report was ap. pt-C:. is composed of numerous different ele-upon setting up the system, that an-proved October 7 by a voice vote. I am wl ments, none of which are necessarily tinuclear activists' interests were proud that the report was passed with, in coordinated with erch other. The beyond the scope of the licensing proc-out dissent and with the active sup. bl' NRC, EPA, State utility commissiens ess. In fact, the interrenors use techni-port of several members of the minor. and environmental quality agencies-cal objections to try to influence it y, including ranking minority et even zoning and transoortation au-broader goals one of which is to cause member FRANK HonroN and ranking thorities at the local level share regu-financial distress in the nuclear utility subcommittee member Jor.L DECKARD a: latory jurisdiction. The issues that are applying for an operating license. The That report is being filed and should T. w; raised range from health protection to result has been to chill the develop-be available in printed form prior to the regulation of utility companies, ment of nuclear power because of the consideration of our a nendment. I tr m We thus have a fragmented, uncoor-attending uncertainty. urge my colleagues to read that report p' dinated system. At the Federal level, the NRC is an We need to make more reforms than prior to casting your votes on this p: agency originally set up to deal with the current legislation allows, but this amendment. If you keep an open mind ot narrow technical issues when it took is a constructive step in the right di-about the facts and read this report,I rt over from the Atomic Energy Commis-rection of getting the licensing process believe you will conclude, as we have$ p' sion. The irony is that the NRC is back on track and effecting regulatory that this interim operating power is ar s< being asked to make social decisions. A reforms that will be forthcoming in inappropriate device and should be re-st the future. good example of this is the responsi-moved from this bill. I will be saying fi tility the Commission has to establish e hir. LIOFFETI' Mr. Chairman, more about our amendment as the et criteria for what consitutes an ade. when the House considers the Nuclear week goes on, but I strongly urge care-b: quate lesel of protection for the public Regulatory Commission reauthoriza. ful consideration of the Goverment from nuclear-related hazards, Con-tion later this week I intend to offer Operations Committee report entitled tl gress has essentially left the establish-an amendment to strike the provision Licensing Speedup. Safety Delay: E nt t s h in the bill which permits interim oper. NRC Oversight?' and I ask for your y.. x. dn a ation of new nuclear plants before the support for our amendment to H.R. t: safety hearings are completed. hir. 2330.e c-a er, d isi the NRC e cft hiARxry of hiassachusetts will join me e Mr. DANNEhfEYER hir. Chair-p reversed by Federal courts, with the in that effort. man, I rise in support of H.R. 4255, r. result being messy regulation that dis-I believe many hfembers are familiar the compromise substitute between e courages the nuclear option and costs with the debate which lies behind this the Energy and Interior Committee I consumers billions provision and our effort to remove it versions of H.R. 2330, the original bill I We need to separate political and from the legislation. For nearly a year, to reauthorize the Nuclear Regulatory 4 technical issues in the licensing proc-the nuclear industry has waged an in. Commission. The most important ) ess. For example, generic issues of tensive campaign to convince the policy-related changes incorporated in t.. = safety and construction criteria should American people and the Members of the measure before the House relate P be settled in separate forums from the this body that burdensome regulatory to the licensing process for nuclear case.by-case plant licensing hearings procedures at the NRC are preventing powerplants. While I would have pre. t : i ' allowing for ongoing review. Technical new nuclear plants from beginning op. ferred the stronger provisions in the questions should then be settled using eration?. They have repeatedly insist-bill as reported from the Energy and r that framework as a guide in the con, ed in statements to this body and to Commerce Committee, the compro-text of individual plant licensing. The committees of the House that up to 13 mise nonetheless moves in the direc-current system is fraught with an plants are being delayed by the NRC tion of addressing the problem posed i uneven application of criteria for licensing process-at a cost ranging up by excessive delays in the regulatory public safety associated with different to $3 billion, according to the industry. process. Specifically-i energy technologies. A more workable Those claims simply are not true. If The bill authorizes, but does not re-approach would establish a uniform the House endorses this interim oper-quire, the NRC to grant interim oper-system of star.dards for all technol. sting authority, it sill do so only be. ating licenses in advance of the com-ogies. This would prevent the same ge. cause it is acceding to the wishes of an pletion of the hearing process, but neric questions from' being tried over industry that has grossly exaggerated only in carefully defined situations. and over agaln in each licensing pro. the delay caused by the licensing proc. The bill overturns the Sholly Feder-ceeding. ess and has seriously and repeatedly al court case wherein a district court Another delay source has to do with misled the Congress and the American ruled that public hearings would be re-the abuse of the regulatory system by people about the status of specific new quired even for routine, technical 6 intervenors. Although important nuclear powerplants. Endorsement of amendments to plant licenses of a issues have been raised by interrenors, this provision by the House will in non-safety related nature. their participation most often takes effect reward the industry for having Finally, the bill requires the NRC to the form of opposition to regulatory misled the House. We would be fulfill-report to Congress within 6 months of decisions. This opposition is usually of ing the industry's wishlist without any the date of enactment of the bill with the special interest, politically orient. regard for the facts with respect to a compichensive study on improve-ed variety. The vast majority of people the question of delays in nuclear ments to the licensing process. Upon who may be affected by nuclear power powerplant operations. receipt of the study, the Congress never really achieves input into the I assure my colleagues that I am not must move expeditiously to enact e Y health protection criteria issue, making these strong statements based major and substantive changes in the At the base of the public participa-simply on my own observations. These regulatory process to reduce the time tion problem is the failure of the regu-conclusions are based on an extensive it takes at present to bring a new nu-latory system to ferret out the politi. Investigation conducted by the sub-clear powerplant on line. cal issues from the technical ones. The committee which I chair and on a. I want to take this opportunity to result is the use of the system by in-report of the full Government Oper-relate to my colleagues the case histor-tervenors as a forum for political and ations Committee which resulted from - les of the Diablo Canyon and San social conflict. The public bears the that subcommittee investigation. That Onofre nuclear facilities as examples cost, of the resulting delay as I men-report concludes in no uncertain terms of the problems of the present regula-tioned before, of $2.5 billion which that the industry has grossly exagger-tory process. Both projects will pro-does not include the price of needless-ated the delay caused by NRC safety vide substantial energy for my region ly imported crude o!!. hearings and it concludes that the in-of southern California. Nuclear-gener- } 1 d. .E
. Ocfober 19,1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -IlOUSE 11 7445 ated power is er,pecially important to ment in connetton with that panels Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. I move j California becase of the pollution hearings on NRC operating licenses. that the Committee do now rise. j problems of the Los Angeles Basin. The utility identified specific prob: cms The motion was agreed to. ) which make fossil-fuel.f! red generat-with the regulatory process that paral-Accordingly the Ccmmittee rose; ing plants environmentally unacecpta-lel the problems and recommendations and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. ble. of the Columbia study on Diablo EmGHAM) having assumed the chair. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. first re-Canyon. The estimates are that delays Mr. Gucxum Chairman of the Com-ceived permission frcm State. lxal at San Onofre for units 2 and 3 total mittee of the Whole House on the and I'ederal officials to move fornrd $3 minion in costs per day; f 500.000 in State of the Union, reported that that with Diablo Canyon over 14 years ago, carrying costs such as interest on bor-Committee, having had under consid-The two-unit f:.cility will generate rowed funds, and $1 minion per day cration the bill (H.R. 2330) to author-more than 2 million kilowatts of clec-for each unit in replacement costs for 1:'e appropriations to the Nuclear Reg-tricity when fully operational, a 20- energy that could be generated by San ulatory Commission in accordance percent increase in the capacity of the Onofre. A Department of Energy with section 261 of the Atomic Energy present system. This level of power report issued in July 1980 calculated Act of 1954. as amended, and section output is the equivalent of 55.000 bar-that the energy savings from the two 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act rels of oil per day, or 20 million barrels new units will be 77.100 barrels of im-of 1974, as amended, and for other per year. This quanity of oil repre-ported o!! per day-a $3 million per purposes, had come to no resolution sents fully 1 percert of our daily con-day savings for the consumers of thereon. sumption of imported petroleum. The southern California. fmancial savings from the power to be The testimony detailed a 25-month
- ?
REMOVAL OP NAME OP MEMBER generated by Diablo Canyon on this aggregate licensing delay. Within the AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3364 i basis total $640 million per year-past year alone, the San Onofre proy. Despite the need for this facility. ect has been rescheduled twice. Clear-Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker. I ask the Columbia Institute for Political ly, any delay due to unnecessary regu-unanimous consent that my name be Research reported in August of this latory business dela3s the realization removed from the list of cosponsors of year in a fact sheet on Diablo Canyon of the substantial energy and financial H.R.3364. that an application for an operating 11-savings-not to mention emironmen-The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is cense for the two reactors has been tal benefits-of these nuclear power there objection to the request of the pending since 1973. Yet, the NRC does facilities. gentleman from Kansas? not project issuance of an operating 11-Accordingly, the modest regulatory There was no objection. cense for unit 1 until at least January reforms in the bill now before us must 1982,if not later. Even if the operating be adopted without further weakening ISOLATE AN INTERNATIONAL license is issued next year. It will have changes through amendments. In f act. OUTLAW been 9 years since the first filing and 8 more comprehensive changes are in years after the hearing process first order, and are in fact, quite " doable". (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given began. Unit 1 was completed in Janu* Just last month, the dean of the permission to address the House for 1 ary of this year and Unit 2 has been John P. Kennedy School of Govern-minute and to revise and extend his complete since June. The weight of ment at Harvard University submitted remarks and include extraneous the regulatory process is only partially a report prepared under contract to matter.) conveyed by the fact that the hearing the President's Nuc1 car bafety Over-Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, when I ) record transcript now spans over sight Committee entitled. " Govern-saw Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi 100.000 pages. The Colunibia Institute ance of Nuclear Power." In it, the fol-celebrating at the death of Egyptian study points to several factors as con-lowing statement appears in the con-President Anwar Sadat. I was sick-tributing to unnecessary delay: NRC cluding section, ened. staff. unpreparedness, failure t In general, proposals to streamhne the li.- I was sickened even more when I irr. pose discipline on hearing boards, censing process seem to be right and reason-contemplated that the United States and inadequate control of activities able. By reducing unnecessary red tape and has tolerated-even patronized-Colo-not critical to the path of license issu-freeing reguintory resources to focus on un* nel Qadhaft, despite international
- anee, resolved issuer. these efforta could cut a 12-thuggery.
The study goes on to state, year process by as much as one-third. (In It occurred to me, as I believe it has The cost of the delay to the consumers of France, the total elapsed time from decision Cahfornia sill be at least $500 minion, and to operation of a standard plant sas 6 years 6L could be much higher. These delays also for the reactors at the Tricastm plant-- has come for the United States to do j i uithout evident sacrifice of safety.) Such a more than wring its hands. The time j could impairtthe reliability of the region's result could improve the cost and safety has come for us to move to isolate Qa-elect.ical genbrating capacity and af fect the performance of the enterprise now and in dhafi from the world community of re- .i area's economic vitanty. the future. sponsible nations. The Department of Energy esti. j mates that the cost of replacement In conchiston, M r. Chairman. I That he is an international outlaw is I power alone is $333 million due to strongly believe that the action we will beyond question. these delays. The utility estimates take with the passage of ILR. 4255 Qadhafi has sent hit squads of assas-triat the costs of delay for both units 1 must be only the first step in the proc-sins to kill not only Libyan exiles-and and 2. reach $83 million per month, or ess of nuclear regulatory reform in the potential rivals, but American diplo-around $1 billion per year, when capi. 97th Congress.e tnats and foreign heads of state. Qadhafi maintains some 16 training tal costs are included. All of this at a 0 1330 time when the residents of California camps to educate and nurture terror- 'i Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman,1 ism to export throughout the world. are paying fully 30 percent more than the national average for our electrical have no further requests for time, and He has harbored some of the world's l needs. The report concludes, that the I reserve the balance of my time. nmst notorious outlaws. I extent of the delays cannot be justi. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman. I Qadhafi has interfered in the inter-l fled on the grounds of safety or env1 have no further requests for time, and nal politics of neighboring nations. l ronmental concerns. I yield back the balance of my time, such as Chad and now the Sudan, for The story is the same for the San Mr. UDALL Mr. Chairman. I yield the sole purpose of fomenting instabil-k Onofre facility in my area. back the balance of my time. ity and chaos, ~j On April 9,1981, the Southern Cali-Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman,1 And if no direct link between Qadha. fornia Edison Co. testified before the yield back the balance of my time. 11 and President Sadat's assassination Interior and Insular Affairs Subcom-The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-is uncovered, it is safe to say at least mittee on Energy and the Environ-pired. Qadhafi, encouraged the assassination. 3 h 4 4u 44
/)Mla PDE 9/28/81 s UNITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . COMMISSIONERS: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman 1 Victor Gilinsky 6-Peter A. Bradford i SEP 2 819M > b John F. Ahearne W O Ottke @ & S m ks Thomas M. Roberts Dodeting aned / i o> In the Matter of ) ) COM40NWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-10 ) (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, ) gg g$ g Unit 1) ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-81-25) This matter involves a request for hearings by several persons and groups (Petitioners) J,f with regard to Comonwealth Edison's (Ceco) proposal to chemically decontaminate Dresden, Unit One. On January 8, 1981, the Comission asked the staff Ceco and the petitioners to brief three questions regarding the scope and fonnat of any hearing on this proposal. Briefs have been received from all participants and are susuarized below. For the reasons discussed below, the Comission has ,. establish an Atomic Safety an Licensing Board to determine 'the petitioners have standing, and has provided guidance on the conduct of a hearing should the Licensing Board determine that one is required. 1/ Petitioners are Citizens for a Better En,ironment, Prairie Alliance, Illinois Saf e Energy Alliance, Kay Drey, Bridget Rorem, ) and Marilyn Shineflug. 00605 rcee i
2 e 1. A.
Background
On December 19, 1974 Ceco submitted a proposal for the chemical decontamination of the interior surfaces of the Dresden i Primary Coolant System. The NRC staff completed its review of that proposal on December 9,1975 and concluded that the program could be conducted with reasonable assurance that the beelth and safety of the public would not be endangered. Specifically, the staff found: The chemical decontamination of the Dresden 1 primary coolant system will be performed entirely within a closed decontamination system. The system has been designed so that no chemical or radiological waste will be released to the environment from the decontamination process. All waste generated in the process will be either solidified for offsite burial at a licensed burial ground or reprocessed for reuse onsite. The solid wastes produced are similar in type and quantity to those handled routinely at the site. Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated 'due to the decontamination... We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the chemical cicaning does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the cleaning project does not involve a significant hazard consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the A~."
- proposed manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in j f,.
compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of L ;. ff thjs.amendsentwillnotbeinimical'totheconnondefenseand ~ Vto the health and safety of the public. ,,2 3 " ; D. 3 M :#' i !., ~ While the staff noted that its review had identified three items as unresolved, the staff authorized initiation of the chemical decontamination program in anticipation that these items wovid be I
3 successfully resolved as specifiec. 2/ On November 14, 1979 CECO requested two changes to its Appendix A Technical Specifications in order to support the chemical cleaning of the Dresden 1 primary system. These changes concern (1) deletion of the requirement to maintain primary containment integrity during the chemical cleaning outage when all fuel is renoved from the reactor and containment; and (2) exclusior. of the radioactive liquid storage tanks which are inside seismically qualified structures from the above grade storage curie limitation. On July 8,1980, Petitioners requested a hearing on the environmental impact statement related to decontamination 2/ These items and the manner in which they were to be completed follow: l!f 1. The testing program will be completed and the results N, ? to performing.the proposed chemical cleaning. submitted for the review and approval of the NRC staff prior A' y: "*2'- A pre-service inspection program for the primary coolant boundary will be formulated and submitted for uur review and approval prior to returning the reactor to service. 3. Post-cleaning surveillance program which includes additional surveillance specimens and a specimer, withdrawol and examination schedule will be submitted for our review and approval prior to returning the reactor to service. By early 1980, Ceco had completed satisfactorily the tnree open items.
4 of Dresden 13/ and "on the application for amendment to Ceco's operating license for Dresden 1. necessary for the said decontamination." On January 8,1981, the Commission asked the staff, Ceco, and Petitioners to brief three questions reg 6rding the scope and format of any hearing on this proposal. The participants' responses to the Connission's questions are summarized below. Question (a): What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification changes sought by CECO are required for decontamination? 3/ On March 19, 1979, Ms. Kay Drey requested that an environmental impact staterent be prepared on the decontamination of Dresden 1. On September 20, 1979, the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance requested public hearings on the decontamination of Dresden 1 based on the lack of assurance that the NRC would issue an environmental impact statement. These requests were treated as requests for action under 10 CFR 2.206. By petition dated March 13, 1980, Mr. Robert Goldsmith, on behalf of Citizens for Better Environment, and Prairie Alliance supported Ms. Drey's petition requesting preparation of an environmental impact statement. On June 26, 1980, the Director issued his decision under 10 CFR 2.206. J# - Although the results of the staff review indicated that the ~ n.g,, .,.... chemical decontamination of Dresden 1 would not significantly ~ '- / ect the quality of the human env'ironment, the Director decided N tin ewirofusental impact statement should be prepared due to .. e3 y significant~ interest and concern expressed by members of the public. The Director thus denied requests for hearings by the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance on the ground that these requests were premised on the failure of the NRC to prepare an environmental impact statement. This environmental impact statement was issued on October 17, 1980. On July 8,1980 Citizens for a Better Environment, Prairie Allionce, Ms. Kay Drey, Ms. Bridget Rorem, Illinois Safe Energy and Ms. Marilyn Shineflug again requested a hearing on the impact statement as well as on the amendments necessary for decontamination. This request is dealt with in this Memorandum and Order.
5 Staff states that it will seek a license modification which will provide reasonable assurance that arrangements exist for the acceptan.ca of solidified decontamination waste at either the Beatty, Nevada or Hanfolrd, Washington low-level waste burial sites. In addition, staff may seek a license amendrent for a program of post-decontamination inspection of metal specimens (coupons) which will be placed in various parts of the primary system prior to decontaminatinn. However, staff does not expect to seek a license modification for the selection and placement of those metal specimens. Staff does not expect to seek any other Itcense modification prior to decontamination. CECO adopted staff's position on this issue. Petitioners did not suggest any license amendments at this time because they do not want to prejudice their ~ ability to file contentions if they are required to submit an additional petition to intervene. Question (b): What, if any, license modifications are required for a resumption of operation? Staff interprets this question to be directed to license modifications required for a resumption of operation on account ci the
- f. ~. '. -
g 1$mm4 cal decontamination and not to other. license modifications required rt up but not related to decontamination. At this time staff expects that no further license modifications will be required 'because it believes that the post-decontamination monitoring requirements do not satisfy the criteria for imposing technical specifications. CECO agrees with staff's position, but emphasizes that it would be impracticable to address restart issues in a hearing on the chemical decontamination because of the uncertainties introduced oy the
6 large number of other pending actions on modifications ~ required for restart but unrelated to decontamination. 4/ Petitioners state that they will probably not raise specific technical specifications or other license modificatiuns for return to coninercial operation. However, they may wish to raise issues regarding the environmental implications of the decontamination upon Dresden's capability to return to service and the evaluation of alternatives to the return to service. Question _(c_): If license modifications are required for both decontamination and return to operation, how should the hearing be structured? Staff believes that a prior hearing is not required because the proposed chemical decontamination does not present a significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, staff believes that any pre-amendment hearing would be at the discretion ~ of the Comission and, thus, could be structured at the discretion of the Comission. If a hearing is granted, staff recomends that the petitioners should be required tt participate jointly as,a single party. Moreover, because five of the six petitioners have not established their standing on the face of their g_ ~.pe}ition, they should be directed to set forth their interests with I ,w. ~-.M rity to allow a determination of their standing to participate. p n. gicope WF'eny hearing, staff would include those matters t %g;-;. '. ~g ; e %.. - directly related to the environmental impact and safety of tne proposec decontamination. This would include an inquiry into whether there is 4/ These include review of the high pressure coolant injection design, ~ sedification of the reactor protection system, instaliation of a reactor recirculation pump trip, environmental qualification of equipment, implementation of applicable TMI action plan requirements, and modifications arising from the Syste atic Evaluation Program. w
e 7 reasonable assurance that follow-up requirements can be developed to monitor the effects of the decontamination on the integrity of materials in Dresden Unit One. However, such inquiry should not require an examination of post-decontamination technical specifications, if any. CECO believes that the Concission has already decided to conduct a hearing, and suggests that if Shol'1v v. NRC (D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-1691, '80-1783, and 80-1784, filed Nov. 19,1980) is reversed, the chemical decontamination can be initiated prior to the end of that hearing because staff has made a detennination of no significant hazards consideration. As to the scope of the hearing, CECO believes it should address the chemical cleaning and necessarily related issues including weste disposal and post-cleaning follow-up requirements. In addition, they suggest that since an environmental impact statement has been prepared, it should be presente' se hearing. However, CEto believes there will be no need to discuss. satives if the Licensing Board initially finds that the proposed decontamination will have no significant impact on the human environment and also finds that the proposal does not give rise to unresolved conflicts concerning 41ternative uses of available resources. Finally, CECO believes that 1 5
- ..i the decontaminatior. should be heard separately from the restart because t
of other modifications would render impracticable the conside tion of any restart issues at this time. Regarding procedural details, CECO agrees that petitioners should be consolidated as a single party. Moreover, because one petitioner has established standing on the face of her petition, CECO believes it would be redundant and unnecessary to require the other petitioners to 1 ' establish their interest in the proceeding. l
l + Petitioners also recommend that restart be lef t for a separate proceeding, and would limit this proceeding to license modifications and all environmental issues related to decontamination. I II. I The following discussion provides guidance on the conduct of any hearing which may be required. l Procedural Matters _ A. Timing of Hearing A hearing is required if the petitioners satisfy the Comission's criteria for intervention. Petitions for hearings have been received, and Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), provides that the Cossnission shall conduct a hearing at the request of persons whose interest may be affected. If the petitioners are found to .have standing and come forward with 'at least one litigable contention, the only remaining question is whether or not that hearing must be concluded prior to initiation of the proposed decontamination. Staff and CECO believe that a prior hearing is not required because staff has made a finding of no significant hazards consideration. Petitioners ,,co.ntend that staff's finding is imaterial because, in their view, ..,, g.h, $..+5egt.ien 189a. of the Atmic Energy Act. of 1954 requires the NRC to ~ q 7.;.7..- %.- f Q. if it is requested. g,.... ' y The Comission has interpreted Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide that neither prior notice nor a prior hearing is required in situations where staff makes a "no significant hazards consideration" finding. In this case, the staff has
It 9 not yet issued its determination of whether the proposed technical specification changes raise a significant hazards consideration. However, unless there is e reversal of the staff's previous indication that approval of the chemical decontamination does not involve a significant hazards consideration, an adjudicatory hearing need not be held prior to issuance of these amendments. We understano that the staff has prepared an updated Safety Evaluation Report. By copy of this Order, the Director, Office of huclear Reactor Regulation is directed promptly to issue a decision on whether the proposed amendments present '"no significant hazards consideration" and to include in that decision all supporting documentation. The Licensing Board, which will be established pursuant to this ' Order, need not wait for the Director to issue his decision before ' initiating a proceeding to detennine which petitioners, if any, have standing. If the Board detennines that some of the petitioners have satisfied the intervention criteria, it shall initiate a hearing. However, if the Director determines that the proposed licensing modifications present "no significant hazards consideration," then the . decontamination may be initiated prior to the conclusion of any hearing. ,A,. Parties 'y issue here is the treatment of the petitioners. Commissi practice requires each party to separately establish standing. 10 CFR 2.714 Intervention may also be granted as a matter of discretion according to specific criteria 5/ Participation by a - person who is not a party is at the discretion of the presiding 5/ Portland General Electric Co., et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear ~ Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-76-27~ THRC 610, 616 (1976).
10 officer and can only take the fonn of a limited appearance. 10 CFR 2.715. Moreover, the rules do not provide for the consolidation of petitioners who are not admitted as parties for the purposes of participation as a single party. The rules provide for the consolidation of parties only. 10 CFR 2.715a. Accordingly, the Licensing Board shall detennine whi'ch petitioners have standing and shall then consolidate those petitioners for treatment as a single party. Scope of the Hearing ..A. Matters Unrelated to Decontaminati_o_nn If a hearing is initiated, the Commission believes that only decontamination related matters should be considered. As Ceco states, many other modifications must be completed before the plant can return to operation. The Consnission did 'not intend to address these other matters in this context. 8. Scope cf the Hearing The Cosatission believes that the scope of any hearing should include the proposed license amendments, and any health, safety or sowitenmental issues fairly raised by them. We believe that this scope h% Mistent with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Acc and NRC 8 NthEdisonCo.(ZionStation,Un.ts1and2), ALA8-516, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980). As a practical matter, this formulation of the scope may result in the same scope of per ceeding as the staff's directly related test, but will avoid arguments over the " directness" of the relation between the proposal and an identified safety issue. Similarly, the proposed fonnulation avoids arguments over Wiether a satoty issue is "necessarily related" to the proposal.
11 License Modifications C. '" l The scope of a hearing must be broad enough to include any issues However, because we related to the proposed license modifications. believe that the hearing should be limited to decontamination related hm issues, there is no need to now consider license modifications which may Regarding the need for 'be required for a resumption of operation. license amendments to conduct the decontamination, the participants have identified only the two Technical Specification changes sought by Ceco and a license requirement regarding arrangements for waste disposal The scope of any hearing held on this matter contemplated by the staff. In addition, the will encompass these proposed license changes. Commission expects the Licensing Board to follow usu 31 practice regarding consideration of the need for other license modifications. ~ Request for Hearina on the EIS In response to the request for a hearing on the EIS, neither the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental policy Act, 6/ nor the Commission's regulations require that there be a hearing on an Thus, a Commission decision to hold environmental impact statement. public hearings on this document would be made pursuant to 10 hearings are required , '1aWHcating that the Commission had found that such The Commission does not so find. e interest. Given that the staff has concluded that the decontamination project will have no significant impact on the human environment, members NRC staff held a public meeting on the Draf t Environmental Stateme Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S. $19, 548 j/ 'T1978). . =
I? 12 Morris Illinois on August 14, 1980, ano the Final En. iron;nental Statement reflected the coments from that meeting as well as all of the written comrnents submitted to the NRC, the Comission fincs tnat the public interest does not require a hearing on the Final Environmental Statement. l'I I. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Part 2 of the Comission's rules of practice, the Comission directs the 'Chainaan of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to appoint an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board te rule on the Petitions for Public flearings filed by the Petitioners. If that Board determines a hearing is required, the Board is instructed to conduct an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with 10 CFR Fart 2, subpart G and the guidance provided in 'this Memorandum and Order. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.765(a)(2), the Comission directs the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel to appoint an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for this proceeding, and authorizes that Board to exercise the authority and perform the .,ganctions which would otherwise have been exercised and performed by the q, 'i. fan in this proceeding, subject to the possibility of later N, t to 10 CFR 2.786. The Appeal Board will ne d$h __ E **. a. a 5 designoted pursuont to 1C CFR 2.787 and notice as to renbecship will be published in the Federal Register. I f i l
1 13 It is so ORDERED. For th) ComissM?, .L__ s Lib ( / ' SAMOEL J. HIG N . Secretary of t e Comission Dated at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of September 1981. e O e g. n. d-D = .. -... +.
h.l- } e f/)/f s BKEC ~ k O DELD RLE Copy ( s. %,...../ o#U RULEMAKING ISSUE C3py (Notation Vote) SECY-81 ___.-366A .- August 28, 1981 For: The Commissioners From: William.J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
DRAFT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT ANTICIPATED LEGISLATION ON (1) INTERIM OPERATING AUTHORITY AND (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (THE"SHOLLYAMENDMENT")
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of draft regulations to j implement anticipated legislation, now in the reported NRC FY 1982 authorization bills, which ) would, among other things, authorize the NRC to (1) issue interim operating licenses and (2) issue requested operating license amendments, involving no significant hazards consideration, prior to the conduct of any hearing. Discussion: There are now pending in the Congress NRC author-ization bills, containing the~ provisions discussed above, much of the substance of which the Comis-sion previously requested in legislative proposals. L The Comittee reports on the bills encouraoe the l Comission to oegin preparing its imolementing l regulations even orior to the enactment of the ~ orovisions. (Tne legislative backgrouno in tnis regard is in Enclosure 1 and Tab A to Enclosure 2). We have, therefore, prepared draft regulations to implement the anticipated legislation even before its passage. Contacts: W. Parler, OELD, 492-7527 T. Dorian, OELD, 492-8690 @m. w r,,,, ~,,, Mp9 6 n. w,. 4 <w g ,n m -
W s,n Kic l DELD FILE COPY {.h+~Mf\\ j;z ss, DElo #Dr RULEMAKING ISSUE l (Affirmation) SECY-81-366A l August 28, 1981 For: The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DRAFT REGUI.ATIONS TO IMPLEMENT ANTICIPATED
Subject:
LEGISLATION ON (1) INTERIM OPERATING AUTHORITY AND (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (THE "SH0LLY AMENDMENT") i
Purpose:
To infom the Commission of draft regulations to implement anticipated legislation, now in the reported NRC FY 1982 authorization bills, which } would, among other things, authorize the NRC to (1) issue interim operating licenses and (2) issue requested operating license amendments, involving no significant hazards consideration, prior to the conduct of any hearing. Discussion: There are now pending in the Congress NRC author-ization bills, containing the provisions discussed above, much of the substance of which the Comis-sion previously requested in legislative proposals. The Committee reports on the bills encourage the _' Comission to beain preparina its implementing regulations even prior to the enactment of the provisions. (The legislative background in this regard is in Enclosure 1 and Tab A to Enclosure 2). We have, therefore, prepared draft regulations to ~ implement the anticipated legislation even before its passage. l Contacts: W. Parler, OELD, 492-7527 l I T. Dorian, OELD, 492-8690
s ~ The Comissioners The Commission could, under its interim operating license authority, authorize the fuel loading, testing, and operation (at a specific power level) of a nuclear power reactor. In practical terms, a utility may petition the Commission to grant an interim operating license when its application for the final operating license is the subject of a contested hearing. The statutory procedures for the use of this authority are set forth in the implementing amendments to Parts 50 and 2 in. These procedures are fully described in the explanatory statement (at the beginning of ) which accompanies the amendments. The regulations implementing the "Sholly Amendment" are in Enclosures 3 and 4. gives the standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards con-sideration. gives the criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such a determination, as well-as the procedures for the required consultation with the State in which the facility is located. A full description of these amendments appears at the beginning of each of these enclosures. Recomendations: That the Commission: (a) Review the rules in Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 c1d advise the staff of its comments. (b) Note thati 1. When the bill on interim operating licenses and no significant hazards con. sideration is enacted into law, the staff will inform the Commission. If the legis-lation requires no substantive change in the' draft regulations in this paper, the staff will so inform the Commission and request the Secretary to schedule them for approval at an early affirmation / discussion session. If, however, the legislation as ' enacted requires substantive changes in the draft regulations, the staff will submit revised regulations to the Comission for approval at an early affirmation / discussion session. In any event, the enclosures to SECY-81-366 will be updated and resubmitted to the Comission when the legislation is ~ ~, - .--n- -.,. + _ _, -. - ,-_.--n,,-
f v .f o The Commissioners enacted. (A draft regulation on standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration was published previously as a proposed rule in the Federal Recister (45 F.R. 20491, March 28, 1980). See SECY-79-660. Enclosures 3 and 4 to this paper supersede SECY-81-366, the staff's earlier proposed final regulation on the ~ standards for a finding of no significant hazards consideration.) 2 '. .As now drafted, the authority un' der the amended Section 192, with respect to interim operating licenses, would expire on Decem-ber 31, 1983. 3. The draft regulations on interim operating licenses and no significant hazards consider-ation have been prepared as final rules which would be made effective 30 days after publi-cation in the Federal Register. t 4. The draft regulation on criteria for public notice and comment on a proposed determina-tion that a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and proce-dures for State consula.ation has been pre-pared as a proposed rule which would be issued for 30-days' public comment. 5. The background statement which accompanies the draft regulation on interim operating licenses includes a Commission finding-that general notice of proposed rulemaking and public participation therein are unnecessary since the regulations implement the new l statutory provisions in Pub.L. 97-XXX, and that, accordingly, good cause exists for making them effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
- 6. ' The draft regulation on interim operating licenses would invite all interested persons who desire to submit written comments or suggestions on the amendments to do so within 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
k
The Comissioners 7. An analysis of the impact of the legislation, if any, on the resources of the Commission and the affected persons will be provided to the Commission when the legislation is enacted, as will a revised value-impact statement (see Enclosure F of SECY-81-366) and a revised analysis of the factors con-tained in the criteria for the periodic systematic review of regulations (Enclo-sure H of SECY-81-366). 8. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul.ation will be directed to provide the-Committee on Environment and Public Works with a monthly report, requested by the Com-mittee, on the Commission's detenninations on no significant hazards consideration. _ _ _,_ 9. Under 10 CFR 51.5, preparation of an environ-mental impact statement, or a negative declara-tion, or an impact appraisal is not necessary, since these. regulations are nonsubstantive and insignificant from the standpoint of environ-mental impact. i
- 10. The draft regulations contain no new or amended requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, plans or procedures, applications, or any other type of information collection.
- 11. The draft regulations contain the requisite Regulatory Flexibility Act certification.
12. Appropriate Congressional Committees will be informed of the rules after the Commission has acted, and a public announcement will be issued when the rules are filed with the Office of the Federal Register. 13. All known interested persons will receive by direct mail a copy of the notices of final and proposed rulemaking.-
- 14. ' The Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel and the Chairman
~ { xv." z,
- x g.s The Comissioners of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel concur in the rwomendations of this paper.
/ 4 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1. Sumary of legislative status. 2. Rule amending 10 CFR Parts 50 and 2 to implement the interim operating license authority in Pub.L. 97-xxx. Tab A - Text of section 192, as it would be amended by S. 1207, as reported. 3. Amendments to 10 CFR-Parts 2 and 50 to implement the Sholly Amendment. (Standards for no significant hazards consideration determination.) i 4. Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 to implement the Sholly Amendment (criteria for public notice and comment and procedures for State consultation). Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, September 16, 1981. Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT September 9,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected. This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of September 21, 1981. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time. DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Exec Legal Director ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat -,r --n, w
F p e s' e 4 u h e% = e
- g
' g 2 m e. O 4 -,.w, d* O L. N e 4 O 00 O O 4 r
x, 4 q,
- y
- .~
~
SUMMARY
OF LEGISLATIVE STATUS The Senate and House presently have before them S.1207, as reported, (Senate Report 97-113) and H.R. 4255, (the compromise Udall-Dingell NRC authorization bill which will be taken to the House floor) respectively. They deal, in relevant part, with interim operating licensing and the so-called Sho11y amendment. Either bill, if enacted, will require imple-menting regulations. Both the Senate arid House versions of the amendment - arising from Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d. 780 (1980), rehearing denied, 651 F.2d 792(1980), specifically require implementation of standards on no signifi-cant hazards consideration within 90 days after passage of the legislation. Moreover, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's report on H.R. 2330 (the earlier version of the NRC authorization bill from which H.R. 4255, the compromise bill, originates) states that "the Committee expects that the Comission will promptly act, prior to the effective date of this authoriza-tion, to establish expedited procedures ... in connection with the issuance of any temporary operating license,... under the requirements of section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act." (H. Rep. 97-22 Part 2. June 9 1981, at p. 11). Similar language in the Senate report encourages the Commission to begin prepari,1g its proposed standards implementing the Sholly amendment "as soon as' possible, even prior to the enactment of this provision." (S. Rep. 97-113, May 13,1981, at p.15.) .Though the Senate and House versions are not far apart, we have chosen to use the Senate version as the basis for preparing the draft regulations because it was available before H.R. 4255, the compromise bill, and, in any event, M
e , would require somewhat more implementing regulations than H.R. 4255. If S.1207 is enacted into law in its present form, after Congress returns in September, the enclosed draft regulations could be affirmed by the Commission, for they need only minor conforming adjustments with respect to insertion of material not now available. If H.R. 4255 is passed, again only minor changes would have to be made to these draft regulations. These could be made quickly, and the Commission' could act promptly. As regards interim operating licensing authority, the circumstances under which a utility may file a petition for such a license and the conditions under which the Commission may exercise such authority are prescribed in Section 201 of S. 1207. o S.1207 and its accompanying legislative history clearly contemplate that the detailed procedural framework established in the legislation is a useful and needed safeguard to govern the Commission's actions in exercising the authority and to preserve for the public a meaningful right to participate in licensing decisions. S.1207 would effectively overrule the Sholly decision by authorizing the Commission to issue and make immediately effective an amendment to a license upon determining that the amendment involves no significant hazards con-sideration, even though NRC has before it a request for a hearing from an interested person. It also directs the Commission to promulgate regulations establishing:
s ~ ~ 3 -- 1. Standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration; 2. Criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public c'omment on such a determination; and Procedures for consultation on such'a determination with the St' ate in 3. which the facility involving the cmendment is located. The Comission already has before it standards for making no significant hazards consideration determinations (SECY-81-366 (June 9, 1981)). These standards, previously issued as a proposed rule (see SECY-79-660), can ' + be promulgated as a final rule as specified in Enclosure 3. (Note that Enclosures 3 and 4 substitute for the final rule in SECY-81-366.) Enclo-sures 3 and 4 differ from the proposed Federal Register notice accomhanying SECY-81-366 in that they have separated, in accordance with the intent of H.R. 4255, the standards for the making of a no significant hazards con-sideration determination from the criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and comment on such a determination. s s +
- , 8 e
7 e e e o s ne l t 6 e e 6 m .d* e L p e k ne s 00 4 e 4
p ^ ' ' '
- ;~
.. ~ [7590-01].- ~ I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50,and 2 Interim Operating Licenses l AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Final Rule. i l l
SUMMARY
- The Commission has adopted amendments to its regulations in l
10 C.F.R. Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," and to its " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, to reflect the enactment of interim operating licensing authority on , 1981. The new authority amended section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Ac;) to authorize the NRC to issue interim operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Section 192, initially added to the Act on June 2,1972, authorized the Atomic Energy Commission to issue temporary operating licenses for nuclear power reactors under certain ~- prescribed circumstances. The authority under the original section 192 expired, however, on October 30, 1973. To the extent that the amended section 192 is in substance the same as the original section, the implementing regulations in the amendments to Parts 50 and 2 likewise are similar in substance to the now expired regulations which were published in 1972 to implement the section initially. The amendments ~ to Parts 50 and 2 set out below are designed to conform Commission 6
, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments received on the proposed rulemaking may be examined and copied for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian, Esq., Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 4'92-8690.' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction i On , Congress passed Pub. L. to authorize appropriations for NRC and for other purposes. Among other things, the legislation directs NRC to promulgate regulations which establish (a) standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards considera-tion, (b) criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such a determination and (c) procedures for consulting on such a' determination with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located. The legislation also authorizes NRC to issue and make immediately effective an amendment to a license upon a determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, even though NRC has before it a request for a hearing by an interested person. ^' s
l e . This proposed rulemaking and request for comments responds to the statutory directive that NRC expeditiously promulgate regulations for (1) providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on whether or not a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (item (b) above), and (2) providing for consultation on such a determination with the State in which the facility is located (item (c) above). The new legislation, affected prior legislation, and NRC's current regulations and practice are discussed in the statement of considerations accompanying the final regu-lations NRC is publishing today in this issue of the Federal Register as the first document in this separate part. The final regulations specify the standards for determining whether an amendment to an operating license or construction pemit for a commerical power reactor or production or utilization facility involves no significant hazards consideration (item (a) above). A. Criteria for Providing or Discensing with Prior Notice and Public Comm?nt ~ The statutory requirement that the Commission promulgate criteria for pro- ~ viding or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on whether or not a proposed license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration was explained by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in its report on S.1207, the Senate bill'which eventually became Pub. L. The Committee stated: The requirement in section 301 that the Commission promulgate criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public t
3 f - v 4-comment on a proposed determination that a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration reflects the intent of the Committee that, wherever practicable, the Commission should publish notice of, and provide for public comment on, such a proposed determination. The Commission has advised the Committee that in some cases the need to issue the proposed amendment will arise quickly, and failure to act on the amendment may result in the shut-down or derating of the plant. The Committee recognizes that the need to act promptly in such situations may foreclose the opportunity for prior public notice and comment. However, in all other cases, the Committee expects the Commission to exercise its authority in a manner that will provide for pr.ior )ublic notice and comment. (Emphasis.added.) Senate Report io. 97-113, May 15,1981, at p.15. The Commission has considered two alternatives in formulating proposed regu-lations to implement the Congressional mandate. Under the first alternative, the Commission would normally issue a notice requesting public comment, on the question of wheth.er a request for an amendment involves no significant i hazards consideration, when the amendment request is received. In addition, the licensee. could make its views about the issue of no significant hazards consideration known to the Commission when it files its application. This l alternative is procedurally simple and, as Congress expects, allows the public and the licensee to comment at an early stage on the no significant-. hazards consideration issue. In addition, this alternative provides an opportunity for the Commission's staff to analyze the comments before a determination is made on no significant hazards consideration. Its principal disadvantage is the fact that in numerous instances the staff would have to j await public comments before it co'uld make routine and simple determinations. Under the second alternative, the Canmission would notice an amendment request after its staff had made a proposed determination about no w, ,,n n, -v.-.,- r.-- ..,,,e .c,n,.m..,,. ~ ---r ,--,---.-.s s ,,-.n,-- ,,n.
e-y
- j-
,.4 , significant hazards consideration. This alternative also compiles with the Congressional intent since it allows the public to comment on the proposed determination. Its key disadvantage is that the determination may take time--this period coupled with the waiting period for public comment before the ultimate finding on the merits of the amendment itself could be made, may, in numerous insta'nces, put_the staff in the position of making the requisite safety deteminations'and act'ing on an ameridment request 'at the lith hour in order to avoid derating or shutting-down the plant, thereby foreclosing meaningful public comment. In addition, this alternative suffers from the appearance that the Commission's staff has prejudged the no significant hazards detemination. Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes to select the first alternative. Accordingly, it proposes to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" to require publication in the Federal Recister of a notice of receipt of an application for an amendment to an operating license or construction permit with a request for public comment on whether the amendment request involvAs ~ no significant hazards consideration, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92(b). Thirty days will nomally be provided for public comment on' the no significant hazards question. If the Commission receives a request for a hearing during this comment ~ period, the Commission would not act on the hearing request until after it l' has made the detemination on no significant hazards consideration. If the l person requesting a hearing meets the provisions for intervention called for i i l
e in 10 CFR 2.714, the Commission normally would hold a hearing only after it issues an amendment, unless it detennines that a significant hazards-consideration is involved. If a significant hazards consideration-is involved, the Commission would issue a notice of proposed action under i 2.105, providing an opportunity for a prior hearing. The Commission may also hold a prior hearing in any case in which it finds that it is in the public interest to do so. If the Commission receives an amendment request where the need to issue the proposed amendment arises-quickly, and failure to act on the amendment may result in the shut-down or derating of the plant, it would normally proceed to publish in the Federal Reoister a notice of receipt for public comment on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, but would not delay its analysis of the issue to await public comments. In an extraordinary case, when it does not have time to publish a notice of receipt under i 50.91, it will publish a notice of issuance under 9 2.106, as described below. In .these instances, if it determines that there is no significant hazards con-sideration and makes the requisite safety findings, it will issue the amendment but, as noted above, a hearing, if requested, may be held after issuance of the amendment. In the other hand, if the Commission determines that there is a significant hazards consideration, it will, under.9 2.105, normally provide thirty-days' prior notice of proposed action on the requested amendment in order to afford an opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing on the determination. (This notice could be issued at any time after issuance of the notice for public canment on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.)
~ s e . Of course, the Commission retains its separate authority to impose amendments on licensees without prior notice and hearing if it finds that the public health, safety or interest so requires. See 10 CFR 2.202(f) and 2.204. Under the new provisions, the Commission would, in effect, normally provide prior notice for public comment as to the issue of no significant hazards consideration on all requests for. amendments to certain operating licenses . and construction permits. Presently, under 12.106(a)(2) it provides notice after the fact by publishing notices of issuance for all these license amendments. In addition, it proposes to amend 12.106(a)(2) by providing for notice of issuance of an amendment only when (1) it has made a determ'i-nation that an amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration and it has published a notice of proposed action under 92.~05 providing an opportunity for a public hearing; or (2) it has received public comment about the issue of no significant hazards consideration on a requested amendment under the previously published notice for public comment; or (3) it has had to act quickly on the amendment request in order to avoid the shut-down or derating of the plant. To provide a practical basis-for implementing the new legislation, for amendments requested before the effective date of the final regulation on which the Commission has not acted.,by that date, the Commission proposes to i l keep its present procedures in Part 2, providing notice of proposed action and opportunity for a hearing under 6 2.105, where appropriate, and notice of issuance under 9 2.106. In addition, it would use the State consultation l procedures, described below, for these amendment requests. 6 " " ~ '~
.T ~ .- B. State Consultation As noted above, the Commission is also required to promulgate regulations which prescribe procedures for Commission consultation with the situs State on a determination that an amendment to the facility license involves no significant hazards consideration. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public explained this requirement.in its Report, cited earlier, as follows: ~ The requirement complements the directive in section 202 that the Commission, in determining whether an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, shall consult with the situs State. The Committee expects that the procedures for State consultation will include the following elements: (1) The State would be notified of a licensee's request for ' an amendment; (2) The State would be advised of the NRC's evaluation of the amendment request; (3) The NRC's proposed determination on whether the license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration 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 detennination; (2) Give the State a right to a hearing on the NRC detemination before the amendment becomes effective; (3) Give the State the right to insist upon a postponement of the NRC detemination or issuance of the amendment; or (4) Alter present provisions of law that reserve to the NRC exclusive responsibility for setting and enforcing radiological health and safety requirements for nuclear power 1 plants. In requiring the NRC to exercise good faith in constiting with a State in determining whether a license amendment in.:olves no significant hazards consideration, the Committee recognizes that a
^, -. '...
- .s
,a , limited number of cases may arise when the NRC, despite its good faith efforts, cannot contact a responsible State official for purposes of prior consultation. Inability to consult with a responsible State official following good faith attempts should not prevent the NRC from making effective a license amendment involving no significant hazards consideration, if the NRC deems it necessary to avoid the shut-down of a power plant. Id., at
- p. 16.
The Comiission believes that the Committee's explanation is ouite specific. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to adopt the elements of the Committee's . recomended procedure in this proposed rule. The Commission notes two points made by the Comittee. First, though the Commission intends to give careful consideration to the comments provided to it by the affected State on the no significant hazards question, the State comments are advisory to the Commis-sion; the Commission remains responsible for making the final administrative i decision on the question. Second, State consultation does not alter present provisions of law that reserve to the Commission exclusive responsibility for setting and enforcing radiological health and safety requirements for nuclear power plants. j paperwork Reduction Act I l This proposed rule contains no new or amended requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, plans or procedures, applications or any other type of information l collection. Regulatory Flexibility Certification i In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule dc,es not 1 l
3 , have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of tbs definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purview of the Act. Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and sec-tion 553 of Title 5 of the United States Coc:, notice is hereby given that . adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated. PART 2 -- RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ~ DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 1. The authority citation for Part 2 reads as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs.161p and 181, Pub.L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 950 and 953. (42 U.S.C. 2201(p) and 2231; sec.191, as amended, Pub.L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, as amended, Pub.L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; unless otherwise noted. Sections 2.200 - 2.206 also issued under sec 186, Pub.L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236) and sec. 206, Pub.L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1246 (43 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.800 - 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
. In i 2.106, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:l/ 2. 9 2.106 Notice of issuance. (a) The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will cause to be published in the Federal Re61 ster n'otice of, and will inform the State ano' local officials specified in i 2.104(a) of the issuance of: (2) An amendment of a license for a facility of the type described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 of this chapter, or a testing facility, [whether or not] where the Commission has received public comment under 6 50.91, i or where it has had to act quickly to avoid the shut-down or derating of the facility and has not published a notice under 6 50.91, or for which a notice of proposed action has been published previously [ published], if the amendment reouest was received after [ effective date of final regulation]. If the amendment reouest was received before [ effective date of final regulationl, the Commission will oro-l l l vide this notice and us? these information orocedures, whether or not a notice of proposed action has been published previously. i ~. l 1 1/ Additions are underscored and deletions are in brackets. j l l
4 . PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 3. The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.'S.C. 213'3, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239); - secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C., 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 50.91 also issued under Pub.L. Stat. (__U.S.C. ). Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under sec. 186, 68 U.S.C. 955 (42 U.S.C 2236). For the purposes of 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), 550.54 (1) issued under sec. section 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)), 6950.70, 50.71 and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)), and the Laws referred to in the Appendices. 1 4. A new 550.91 is proposed to be added to Part 50 to read as follows: 950.91 Public notice and comment; State consultation. (a) With respect to applications received after [ effective date of final rule], as soon as practicable after receipt of the application for an amendment to an operating license or construction permit for a production or utilization facility which is of a type described in 9 50.21(b) or 6 50.22, g
'~ r .? 13 - or which is a testing facility, the Commission will normally publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of the application. The notice will (i) identify the facility concerned, (ii) briefly describe the requested amendment, and (iii) provide a 30-day comment period (unless for good reason it provides a shorter period) on the question of whether, pursuant to the criteria in 9 50.92(b), the amendment involves no significant hazards con-sideration. The Commission will consider any public comments on the no . significant hazards consideration question, unless failure to act quickly on the amendment may result in the shut-down or derating of the plant. The licensee requesting the amendment can make its views, if any, about the issue of no significant hazards consideration, known to the Commission when it files its application for the amendment. (b) The Commission will provide for State consultation on its determination about no significant hazards consideration as follows: (1) Each licensee applying for an amendment to e construction pennit or operating license shall notify the State in which the licensee's facility is located of the licensee's request for an amendment by providing to that State a copy of the application, and shall indicate on the application thaf it has done so. (2) After its evaluatilbn of the amendment request, the Commission will discuss with the State its proposed determination on no significant hazards consideration, including its reasons for making the determination. The Commission will consider any comments of the State official designated to consult with it in its determination dn no significant hazards consideration. After it issues the requested amendment, the Commission will send the State a copy of the amendment, appending its evaluation. / -,m .n.
u 14 - (3) ' For all amendment requests received before [ effective date of final rule] but not issued and for all amendment requests received after [ effective date of final rule], the Commission will make a good faith attempt to con-sult with the State before issuing the license amendment. If failure to act quickly on the amendment, however, may result in the shut-down or derating of the plant, the Commission may dispense with prior State consultation. (c) The State consultation procedures in paragraph (b) of this section ~ do not give the State a right: (1) To veto the Omnmission's proposed determination; (2) To a hearing on the determination before the amendment becomes. ~ effective; or (3) To insist upon a postponement of the determination or issuance of the amendment. Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of 1981. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary for the Commission m os e e. g s
48 9 _j e' k -*e 's' ,g g, s. 4 ..-e O' gB e m D m 0 9* 4 e m %g e O / e O
e [7590-01] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 Standards for Determining Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Consideration AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY
As required by the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1982, NRC is amending its regulations to specify standards for determining whether amendments to operating licenses or construction permits for t certain facilities involve no significant hazards consideration. EFFECTIVE DATE: [ Effective date is 30 days following publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian, Esq., Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301)492-8690.
3 Av 7 -,. s , SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction On ~ , Congress passed Pub. L. to authorize appropriations for NRC and for other purposes. Among other things, the legislation directs NRC to promulgate, within 90 dais of enactment, regulations which e'stablish (a) standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration, (b) criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such a detemination, and (c) proce-dures for consultation on such a determination with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located. r Proposed regulations to specify standards for detemining whether an amend-ment to an operating license or construction permit for a commercial power reactor or large production of utilization facility involves no significant hazards consideration (item (a) above) were published for comment in the Federal Register by the Commission on March 28, 1980 (45 FR 20491). The' Co'm-mission is now promulgating these regulations in final form. Since the pro-posed rule was published before the new legislation was enacted, the final rule takes account not only of the new legislation but also the public comments received an the proposed rule. In addition, affected prior legislation as well as Commission regulations and practice are discussed as background information. Simultaneously with the promulgation of these final standards, the Commission, as required by the new legislation, is publishing a proposed rule which
r,
- '. ~
.T ~ .... contains criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on a determination as to whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration (item (b) above). Regulations are also proposed whicn specify procedures for consultation on such a determination with 'the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located (item (c). These proposed rules appear in this issue of the ~ Federal Register as the second document 1n this separate part. A. Affected Legislation and Regulations Before enactment of the dew legislation, section 189a. of the Atomic' Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), provided that upon thirty-days' notice published in the Federal Register the Commission may issue an oper-i ating license, or an amendment to an operating license, or an amendment to a construction permit, for a facility licensed under section 103 or 104b. of the Act, or a testing facility licensed under section 104c., without a public hearing if no hearing was requested by any interested person. Section 189a. also pennitted the Commission to dispense with such thirty-days' notice and Federal Register publication with respect to the issuance of an amendmentlo 1 l a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license upon a determi-nation by the Commission th$t the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.. ~. The Commission's regulations implementing section 189a. with respect to no l significant hazards consideration are contained in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, 1 " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" and " Domestic Licensing of Utilization Facilities," respectively. The regulations
,. provide for prior notice of proposed action on an application for an amend-ment when a no significant hazards consideration determination is not made and provide opportunity for interested members of the public to request a hearing. See 10 CFR 2.105(a)(3) and 50.91. Hence, if a requested license amendment is found to involve a significant hazards consideration, the amendment will not normally be issued until after any required hearing is completed. In addition, 5 50.58(b) provides for thirty-days' notice and opportunity for a hearing on an application for a construction permit for a production, utilization or testing facility, for an operating license, or for an amend-ment to a construction permit or operating license. A hearing after the notice is required only on (a) an application for a construction permit or (b) on an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or operating license, when requested by a person whose interest may be affected. The provision also provides that if the Commission determines that no signifi-cant hazards consideration is presented by an application for an amendment to a construction permit or operating license, it may dispense with the notic'e'. Thus, a determination that a proposed license amendment docs or does not present a "significant hazards consideration" significantly affects the public hearing and notice requirements. However, the regulations until now have not defined the tenn "significant hazards consideration." The Comission's practice with regard to license amendments involving no significant hazards consideration (unless, as a matter of discretion, prior v n .+
l ' notice was given) was to issue the amendment and then publish in the Federal l Register a notice of issuance. See10CFR2.106(a). In such cases, inter-ested members of the public who wished to object to the amendment and request a hearing could do so, but a request for hearing did not, by itself, suspend the effectiveness of the amendment. B. The Sholly Decision and the New Legislation The Commission's practice of not providing an opportunity for a prior hear-ing on a license amendment not involving significant hazards considerations was held to be improper in Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (1980), rehearing denied, 651 F.2d 792 (1980), cert. granted (Sholly). In that case the U.S. Court 5 of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that, under section 189a. of the Act, NRC must hold a prior hearing before an amendment to a construction pennit or operating license for a production, utilization or testing facility can becczne effective, if there has been a request for hearing (or an expres-sion of interest in the subject matter of the proposed amendment which is sufficient to constitute a request for a hearing). A prior hearing, said the ~ Court, is required even when NRC has made a finding that a proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and has detennined to dispense with prior publication in the Federal Register. At the request of the Com-mission and the Department of Jus'tice, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Court of Appeal's interpretation of section 189a. of the Act. e e s y - -. s_ r
- x..,
- .~
.- The Court's decision did not involve and has no effect upon the Commission's authority to order immediately effective amendments, without prior notice or hearing, when the public health, safety, or interest, or the common defense and security so requires. See, Administrative Procedure Act, f 9(b), 5 U.S.C. 5 558(c), section 161 of the Act, and 10 CFR 2.202(f) and 2.204. Similarly, the Court did not alter existing law with regard to the Commission's pleading requirements, which are designeil to ena'ble the Commission to determine whether a person requesting a hearing is, in fact, an." interested person" within the meaning of section 189a.; that is, whether the person has demonstrated standing and identified one or more issues to be litigated. See, BPI v. Atomic Eneroy Comission, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir.1974), where the Court stated that, "Under its procedural regulations it is not unreasonable for the Commission t to require that the prospective intervenor first specify the basis for his request for a hearing." However, NRC believed that legislation was neeJ&tc change the result reached by the Court in Sholly because of the implications of the require-ment that NRC grant a requested hearing before it could issue a license 1 amendment involving no significant hazards consideration. Since most requested license amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and are rou-tine in nature, hearings on such amendments could result in unnecessary dis-ruption or delay in the operations of nuclear power plants and could impose unnecessary regulatory burdens upon NRC and the nuclear industry that are not related to significant safety matters. Subsequently, on March 11, 1981, the Commission submitted proposed legislation to Congress (introduced as S.912) that would expressly authorize NRC to issue a license amendment
- ; ~
,, involving no significar,' hazards consideration before holding a hearing requested by an interested person; The Congressional response is contained in Sections and of Pub. L. ~ Specifically, in pertinent part, Section [202] of that law amends section 189a. of the Act by adding the following with respect to license amendments involving no signific' ant haza'rds consideration: The Conunission is authorized 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 consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person. In determining under this sub-section whether an amendment involves no significant hazards con-sideration, the Commission shall consult with the State in which the facility is. located. The authority under this subsection to 6 issue and to make immediately effective an amendment to a license shall take effect upon the promulgation by the Commission of standards for detennining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration. Section [301] of Pub. L. provides that: l For the purpose of implementing the amendment to section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 contained in section 202 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within ninety days of enactment I of this Act, shall promulgate regulations establishing standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards cosideration, criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such determi-nations, and procedures for consultation on such determinations with the State in which the facility is located. Thus, as noted above, the legisla ion authorizes NRC to issue and make imme-diately effective an amendment to a license upon a detennination that the l amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, even though NRC D m
= .~ : [ has before it a request for a hearing from an interested person. At the same time, however, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in its report on S. 1207, the Senate bill, made it clear that it expects NRC to exercise its authority under section [202] "only in the case of amendments not involving significant safety questions." See Senate Report No. 97-113, May 15, 1981, at p. 14. Moreover, the Committee stressed its strong desire to preserve for the public a meaningful right to participate in decisions regarding the commercial use of nuclear-Thus, the provision does not dispense with the requirement power. for a hearing, and the NRC, if requested [by an interested person], must conduct a hearing after the license amendment takes effect. .I_d ~ It should be also noted that Section [301], in pertinent part, separates the standards for determining whether an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (now used with respect to prior noticing and oppor-tunity for hearing) from the criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on this determination. In directing NRC to promulgate the regulations within 90 days after enact-ment, the Senate Report notes the following: ~ Recognizing that the rulemaking process often can take a signifi-cant period of time, the Committee encourages the Commission to begin preparing its proposed standards as soon as possible, even prior to enactment of this p'rovision. In that regard, the Committee notes that the Commission has already issued for public comment rules including standards for detenntning whether an - - ~ . ~,,. -
7 ~ . amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. [45 FR 20491, March 28,1980] The Committee believes that the Commission should be able to build upon this past effort, and it expects the' Commission to act expeditiously in promulgating the required standards within the time specified in section 301. Id., at p. 15. Therefore, the Commission is promulgating as a final rule the proposed standards for detennining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration. Simultaneously, the Commission is - publishing for thirty-days' coment (as mentioned before) a proposed rule to establish (a) criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such a determination and (b) procedures for consult-ing the requisite State on such a determination. s. C. Final Rule on Standards for Determining Whether an Amendment to an Operating License or Construction Pemit Involves No Significant Hazards Consideration The Commission's final rule on standards for determining whether an amend-ment involves no significant hazards consideration completes its actions on the notice of proposed rulemaking (discussed above), which was issued in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM 50-17) submitted by letter to ^ the Secretary of the Commission on May 7,1978, by Mr. Robert Lowenstein. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations be amended with respect to the procedures for issuance of amendments to ( operatiing licenses for productionnand utilization facilities. l i The petitioner's proposed amendments to the regulations wculd have required l that the staff take into consideration (in determining whether a proposed i l
3 '- v .f e,s , amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considera-tion) whether operation of the plant under the proposed license amendment would (1) substantially increase the probability or consequences of a major credible reactor accident or (2) decrease the margins of safety substantially below~ those previously evaluated for the plant and below those approved for existing licenses. Further, the petitioner proposed that, if the staff reaches a negative conclusion as' to both of these standards, the proposed amendment must be considered not to involve a significant hazards consideration. In issuing the proposed rule, the Commission sought to improve the licensing process by specifying in the regulations standards as to the meaning of "no i significant hazards consideration." These standards would apply to amend-ments to operating licenses, as requested by the petition for rulemaking, and also to construction pennits, to whatever extent considered appropriate. In the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed rule, the Commission explained, however, that it did not agree with the petitioner's proposed standards because of the limitation to " major credible reactor ~ accidents" and the failure to include accidents of a type different from those previously evaluated. During the past several years the' Commissica's staff has been guided in reaching its ' determinations with respect to "no significant hazards con-sideration" by staff standards and examples of amendments likely to invcive, and not likely to involve, significant hazards considerations. These have proven useful to the staff, and the Commission employed them in developing o
= e &y, f ,,, the proposed rule. The notice of proposed rulemaking contained revised standards to be incorporated into Part 50, and the statement of considera-tions contained examples of amendments to a construction permit or operating license that are considered likely and not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. It should be noted that the examples are directly applicable to operating power reactors and only indirectly applicable to construction permits and proc'uc' tion facilities. The standards pro' posed were whether the license snendment would (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. (2) create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any. -evaluated previously, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Nine individuals submitted comments regarding the proposed amendments. The comments are part of the public record and may be examined at and copied for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washingtnn, D.C. A summary of and response to the. comments is available for examination and copying for a fee at the Public Document Room. i A number of connenters recommended, in regard to the second criterion in the proposed rule, that a threshold level for accident consequence (for example, the limits in 10 CFR Part 100) be established to eliminate insignificant types of accidents from prenoticing. This comment was not accepted. Setting a threshold level for accident consequence could eliminate a group of ' amend- ~ ments with respect to accidents which have not been previously evaluated or / D
~ ,. which, if previously evaluated, may turn out to have more severe consequences than previously evaluated. It is possible, for example, that there may be a class of license amendments sought by a licensee which, while designed to improve or increase safety may, on balance, involve a significant hazards consideration because they result in operation of a reactor with a reduced safety margin due to other' factors or problems (i.e., the net effect is a reduction in safety of some signiff-cance). Such amendments typically are also proposed by a licensee as an interim or final resolution of some significant safety issue that was not raised or resolved before issuance of the operating license; and, based on evaluation of the new safety issue, they may result in a reduction of a j safety margin believed to have been clear and present when the license was issued. In this instance, the presence of the new safety issue in the review of the proposed amendment, at least arguably, could prevent a finding of no significant hazards consideration, even though the issue would ultimately be satisfactorily resolved by the issuance of the amendment. Accordingly, the Commission has added to the statement of considerations a new example (viiT in the class of amendments considered likely to involve a significant hazards ~ consideration. In addition, the Senate Committee'un Environment and Public Works commented upon the Commission's proposed rule before it reported S. 1207. It stated: The Committee recognizes that reasonable persons may differ on whether a lice. se amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the Committee expects the Commission to develop 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 significant hazards consideration. The Committee anticipates, for example, that consistent with prior practice, the Comission's standards would not pennit a "no significant hazards consideration" determination for license amendments to pennit reracking of spent fuel pools. Id., at p. 15. Accordingly, a new example (viii), fitting somewhat indirectly into the standards, has been added to the statement of considerations to make clear that spent fuel pool rerackings are. specifically considered likely to . involve a significant hazards consideration. The Coninittee also stated -that: It expects that the Commission, to the extent practicable, will develop and promulgate standards that can be applied with ease and certainty. In addition, the determination of "no significant a hazards consideration" should represent a judgment on the nature of the issues raised by the license amendment rather than a conclusion about the merits of those issues. Id. This statement alluded to the point that the prcposed rule contained criteria to determine whether an amandment requires prior notice which were the same as standards to detennine the merits of whether a requested amendment should be granted. In this context, oiie commenter suggested that application of the criteria with respect to prior noticing in many instances will necessarily require the resolution of substantial factual questions which largely overlap the issues which bear on the merits of the license amendment. The implication of the consnent was that the Commission at the prenoticing stage could lock itself into a decision on the merits. Conversely, the commenter stated that the staff, in using the no significant hazards consideration standards, L
.T ~r . was reluctant to give prior notice of emendments because its determination about the notice might be viewed as constituting a negative connotation on the merits. Also of concern was the point that the Commission, under the current regulations as well as under the proposed rule, could avoid notic'e, entirely after making a determination of no significant hazards consideration. l In any event, the legislatfor, has made moot the comment by separating the criteria for public notice and comment on no significant hazards considera-tion determinations fran~the standards for making a determination about no significant hazards consideration. Under the legislation the Com-k mission would not use the same criteria for notice and comment as it would for the standards on no significant hazards consideration determination. As fully described in the accompanying proposed rule on criteria for notice and comment, using the criteria, the Commission normally would prenotice for comment about the issue of no significant hazards consideration all requests for amendments; it would use the standards in 9 50.92(b) to deter-mine whether to issue a requested amendment and whether, under 9 2.105, to issue notice of proposed action and provide opportunity for a hearing. ~ The Commission nas left the proposed rule intact to the extent that the rule states standards with respect to 'the meaning of "no significant hazards con-sideration." The standards in the final rule are substantially identical to those in the proposed rule, though the attendant language has been revised O
o, ~v .f .. to make the determination somewhat simpler, as well as easier to use and understand. Based on comments received, the examples of amendments likely to involve, and not l'ikely to involve, significant hazards considerations have been revised to ensure that determinations on hazards considerations do not prejudge the I ultimate safety findings, i.e., that the no significant hazards consideration i determinations are not identical to the conclusions in the final staff reviews of the merits of the types of license amendments addressed by the examples. To supplement the standards that are being incorporated into the NRC regula-tions, the examples will be incorporated into procedures of the Office of f Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a copy of which will be placed in the Commission's ) Public Document Room. Examples of amendmer.ts that are considered likely to involve significant hazards considerations are listed below. (A seventh and e ghth example have been added, as previously discussed.) (i) A significant relaxation of the criteria used to e.tablish safety c limits. (ii) A significant relaxation of the bases for limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation. (iii) A significant relaxation in; limiting conditions for operation not accompanied by compensatory changes, conditions, or actions that maintain a commensurate level of safety. (iv) Renewal of an operating license.
e 16 - (v) For a nuclear power plant, an increase in authorized maximum core power level. (vi) A change to technical specifications involving a significant unreviewed safety question. (vii) A change in plant operation designed to improve safety but which, in fact, allows plant operation with safety margins of some significance reduced from those believed to flave been present when the license was issued. (viii) Reracking of a spent fuel storage pool. Examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration are listed below: for (1) A purely administrative change to technical specifications: example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature. (ii) A change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the technical specifications: for examp1e, a more stringent surveillance requirement. (iii) For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reluading, if no fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable' to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, the analytical methods used to demonstrate confomance with the technical --s.
. i specifications and regulations are not significantly changed, and NRC has previously found such methods acceptable. (iv) A relief granted upon demonstration of acceptable operation from an operating res'triction that was imposed because acceptable operation was not yet demonstrated. This assumes that the operating restriction and the criteria to be applied to a request for relief have been established in a 1 prior review and that satisfaction of the criteria are essentially ' sel f-evident. (v) A relief granted upon satisfactory completion of construction from an operating restriction ihat was imposed because the facility construction was not yet completed satisfactorily. This is intended to involve only [ restrictions where it is essentially self-evident whether construction has been completed satisfactorily. (vi) A change which either increases the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or reduces a safety margin but for which the results of the change are clearly within regulatory acceptance criteria: for d. example, a change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a l previously used calculational model or design method. r (vii) A change to make a license conform to changes in the regulations, i l ~ l where the license change results in very minor changes to facility opera-I tions clearly in keeping with 'he regulations. l (viii). An extension of the datd', in a construction permit, for the i completion of construction. l (ix) A change to a license to reflect a minor adjustment in ownership shares among co-owners already shown in the license. l ~~
u a g o .' Finally, as directed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the O,nsnission will provide to it a monthly report on the Commission's determi-nations on no significant hazards consideration. J l Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no new'or amen'ded requirements for recordk'eeping, reporting, plans or procedures, applications or any other type of information collection. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of ~ "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purview of the Act. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a's amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amended, and Sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR Part 50, are pub-lished as a document subject to codification. ~ S
4 ~ :...
- .-~
~ ~ .. PART 2 -- RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 1. The authority citation for Part 2 reads as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs.161p and 181, Pub.L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 950 and 953. (42 U.S.C. 2201(p) and 2231; sec'.191, as amended, Pub.L. 87-615, 76 Stat. - 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, as amended, Pub.L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; unless otherwise noted. Sections 2.200 - 2.206 also issuad under se'c.186, Pub.L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.. 2236) and sec. 206, Pub.L. 93-438, 88 Stat.1246 (43 U.S.C. 5846). Sections F 2.800 - 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. 2. In i 2.105, paragraph (a)(3) is revised, paragraph (a)(4) through (a)(8) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(5) through (a)(9), and a new para-graph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:$/ 12.105 Notice of proposed action. (a) If a hearing is not required by the Act or this Chapter, and if the Commission has not found that a hearing is in the public interest, it will 1/ Additions to the currently effective regulation are underscored and deletions are within brackets. Changes to the proposed amendments that were published in the Federal Register on March 28, 1980, 45 FR 20491, are indicated with a line in the-margin and with arrows (-, +). Before publishing in the Federal Register, the arrows, underscores, brackets, the material in the brackets and within the arrows, and this footnote will be deleted. 4 9
- prior to acting thercon, cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for: (3) An amendment of a license specified in paragraph (a)*[(1) or]*(2) l of this section and which involves a significant hazards consideration. (4)Anamendmenttoanoperatinglicenseortoaconstructionpermit for a production or utilizatior ' facility licensed under sections 103 or 104b. of the Act or a testing faciiity licensed under section 104c. when the Commission in its analysis, using the standards in 650.92(b) of this chapter, determines that~there is a significant hazards consideration; or *** PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 3. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows: Secs.103,104,161,182,183,189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 955, AUTHORITY: 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C., 5841', 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).-+ Section 50.92 also issued under Pub.L. Stat. ( _ U.S.C. ). <- Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under sec. 186, 68 U.S.C. 955 (42 U.S.C 2236). For the purposes of --n ,w a s-r-+r--
e . 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), 550.54 (i) issued under sec. section 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)), l950.70, 50.71 and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)), and the Laws referred to in the Appendices. (4) In i 50.58, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: 550.58 Hearings and report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. (b) The Commission Will hold a hearing 2 after at least 30-days' notice l and publication once in the FEDERAL REGISTER on each application for a j 2 construction permit for a production or utilization facility which is of a t When a type described in $50.21(b) or $50.22 or which is a testing facility. construction permit has been issued for such a facility following the holding of e public hearing and an application is made for an operating license or for an amendment to a construction permit or operating license, the Commission may hold a hearing after at least 30-days' notice and publication [or,] In the absence of a request [therefoI] (~ once in the FEDERAL REGISTER. for a hearing by any person whose interest may be affected, the Commission l may issue an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or operating license without a hearing, upon 30-days' notice and publication once in the FEDERAL REGISTER of Its intent to do so. If the Commission finds that no significant hazards consideration is presented by an applica-tion for an amendment to a construc'a n permit or operating license,-Fusing
s. '- 7 22 - the standards in 650.92(b), <F-(i) it may dispense with notice [and publication] t of proposed action under 6 2.105 of this chapter and -*(11) it may issue the amendment, notwithstanding the pendence before it of a request for hearing from any person. 4-5. Section 50.91 is redesignated as 550.92 and revised to read as follows: -e f 50.92 [50.91]<" Issuance of amendment. (a) In determining whether an amendment to a license or construction permit will be issued to the applicant, the Commission udll be guided by the considerations which govern the issuance of initial licenses or construc-tion permits to the extent applicable and appropriate. (b) -+ The Commission will determine (- that a proposed amendment to an operating license or construr,cion permit involves no significant hazards considoration,-t unless it finds that + operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident from any1 accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previousl'y evaluated; or ~ (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. S em,- --o--- e. m--
,-r--
,r-an
- .+
~ 23 - -+ (c) If the Commission determines that the application involves the ~ material alteration of a licensed facility,+it will issue a construction permit-* before it issues [will be issued prior to the issuance of]+ the amendment to the license. --> (d) If the Consnission determines that the amendment involves a signifi- ~ i cant hazards consideration, [the' Commiss' ion],11@ will give notice of its - proposed action pursua it to i 2.105 of this chapter before acting [therton] on the amendment. The notice will be issued as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed. Dated at Washington,.D.C. this day of , 1981. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samuel J. Chil k Secretary for the Commission i e iw--- ,+ y.
9 j 0 4 .o 0 9 S 9, e e k e e 6 e M $=, e
- e 6
.m o e e. 9 P e 9 O r 4 g e e# 6 e.=_- a_.- 4 d 4 f. t O 8 t a b 9 09 4 4 /
- ~. -
q, \\, ~ [7590-01] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Criteria for Notice and Public Comment and Procedures for State Consultation on License Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). AGENCY: ACTION: Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY
The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to specify criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on deter-minations about whether amendments to operating licenses or to construc-tion permits for certain facilities involve no significant hazards consideration. It is also proposing procedures for consultaticn on these determinations with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located. DATES: Comment period expires (30 days following publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comme.'ts received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory <- ission, Washington, D.C. 20555, t h
e
- regulations and procedures to the new interim operating licensing L
authority. DATE: [ Effective date is 30 days following publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.] Comments on the amendments are invited from all interested persons within 30 days of publication of this notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. ADDRESS: All interested persons who desire to submit written comments or suggestions for consideration in connection with the amendments should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch by [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. Copies of v comments received on the amendments may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William C. Parler, Office of the Execu-tive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-7527. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION$
Background
Following the March 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, the NRC devoted principal attention to evaluating the acci-dent and its implications for the safe regulation of nuclear power in
e this country, and to developing the necessary regulatory improvements for presently operating nuclear power plants. During this period, construc-tion continued on those nuclear power plants with construction pennits, although only very limited NRC effort was applied to preparing and completing the necessary safety review and hearing requirements for the issuance of operating licenses for these facilities. Largely as a result of this situation, it became apparent in late 1980 that delays would be experienced between the time when. ccnstruction of -some of these plants would be sufficiently completed to 4'llow fuel loading and the start of operation, and the time when all requirements for the issuance of an operating license, including the hearing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, would be met. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), no person i may operate a nuclear power plant without first obtaining an operating license from the NRC. A fonnal on-the-record evidentiary hearing must be held - and a decision rendered on the basis of that record - if requested by any person whose interest may be affected, before the Commission may issue an operating license. Prior to the enactment of Pub. L. 97-XXX, however, the Commission lacked the authority to authorize fuel loading ~ and low-power operation and testing on the basis of its safety and environmental evaluation; it was required instead to await authorization in the course of the hearing process (see 10 C.F.R. 9 50.57(c)). Even with the administrative changes to the licensing process designed to reduce the time required to complete the license process for these plants, the potential for licensing delays remained for some of the plants scheduled to be completed in 1981 and 1982. Although there are i
g. .T A v .- uncertainties es to the precise costs of the projected licensing delays for these plants, the estimates, even if limited only to the cost of replacement power, indicate that the cost to the utilities and to their ratepayers will be in the range of tens of millions of dollars a month for each completed plant. - In order to relieve the burden of these delays, on March 18, 1981, the Commission submitted a legislative proposal to amend the Act to authorize the Commission to issue an interim operating license for a nuclear power plant, authorizing fuel loading and low-power operation and testing, in advance cf the conduct or completion of an on-the-record evidentiary hearing on contested issues relating to the final operating license. Pub. L. 97-XXX, is the final legislative product of the Com-mission's proposO.. General The interim operating licensing authority could be used in any pro-ceeding upon an application for an operating license for a utilization facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104b. of the Act, in which a hearing is otherwise required under section 189a. of the Act ' on the final operating license for the facility. Pending final action by the Commission on the appIication for the final operating license for the facility, the applicant may petition the Commission for an interim operating license for such facility authorizing fuel loading, testing and operation at a specific power level to be determined by the Commission. The initial petition, however, woul'd be limited to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of the nuclear facility's rated full power. After the
iy .f 3,., 5-interim operating license is issued, the utility licensee may file one or l more additional petitions with the Commission to allow facility operation in staged increases in power level beyond the initial 5 per centum limitation. All authorizations for interim operating licenses under section 192 and these implementing regulations shall be pursuant to a final ~ order of the Commission itself. Any such action lies within the discretion of the Commission. The present authority and procedures in i 50.57(c) of the regulations ('under wliich a presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board may, on motion, and after a decision based on the evidentiary record or upon agreement of the parties to the contested proceeding, authorize the issuance of a fuel load or low-power and testing license) remain available, however, and are not affected at all by these regulation.s implementing section 192 of the Act. The circumstances under which petitions may be filed and conditions under which the Commission may exercise such authority are as prescribed I in section of Public Law 97-XXX. These provisions are reflected in l the implementing amendments to Parts 50 and 2 set out below. In essence, these amendments establish a detailed procedural framework for consider-ing and issuing interim operating licenses. Section192,asiended,an[ its accompanying legislative history clearly contemplate that such procedures are useful and needed safeguards to govern the Commission's actions in exercising the new authority and to preserve for the public a I meaningful right to participate in licensing decisions. 9 er e -,,,----w--,~wy-, ,.v..-ww.,,-,-r-,w--,,,,w q, - - ,m. ,vn,-y-w wm se+,,n----q.m,,,m,-w,-,-.,.n-amew, ,,,,,--,v,, ,,m., ,e--,-- <gw--,e.w ,m-,,-n- ,we,-
y ,. New 6 50.57(d) of 10 CFR Part 50 A new i 50.57(d) has been addea to reflect the substance of the interim operating licensing authority granted by Public Law-XXX and the special provisions which must be satisfied before the Commission exer-cises this authority. Pursuant to section of Public Law 97-XXX and 5 50.57(d), the following requirements are applicable to a petition for and the issuance of an interim operating license and amendments thereto: A petition for the iss'uance.of an interim operating license cannot be filed with the, Commission until the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) report, the NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC staff environmeital statement, and a State, local or utility emergency plan have been filed. In the case of the NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report, according to the legislative history (S. Rep. i No. 97-113, May 15,1981, at p.12), the petition for an interim oper-ating license may be submitted to the Commission after the filing of the initial Safety Evaluation Report and the staff's supplement to the report prepared in response to the ACRS report for the plant. The initial petition for an interim operating license is limited by section 192 to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of the facili-ty's rated full themal power. After the interim operating license is issued, however, the utility licensee may file petitions with the Commission to amend the interim license to allow the facility to operate at specific power levels exceed'ing 5 pe. centum of rated full thermal The latter levels could be up to and include full power in those power. cases in which the Commission detemines that such action is necessary. In all instances, action on such petitions shall be authorized pursuant to a final order of the Commission itself which shall reflect the basis
-c for the findings required by section 192. Moreover, such actions lie within the sound discretion of the Commission itself. Following the issuance of an interim operating license, subse-quent petitions from the utility, notice and public comment periods on each petition, and the determinations by the NRC called for by section 192 ~(and implemented in this new i 50.57(d)) are required before the Commission can al* ow operation, by amending the interim operating license, at power levels beyond the initial 5 per centum low-power testing level. Before issuing an interim operating license or amending the 4 license to allow operation at succeeding power levels, NRC must provide notice of the request for such authority and a 30-day period for public coment. Upon the expiration of the 30-day comment period, the Commission may issue the interim operating license, or amend the license to allow interim operation at power levels in excess of the initial license limitation, as the case may be, if the Commission itself determines that: (1) all requirements of law other than the conduct of completion of any required hearing on the final operating license are met; (2) in accord ~ ~ ance with such requirements, there is reasonabl,e assurance that interim operation of the facility'in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environment; and -(3) denial of the interim operating license will result in delay between the time when the facility is sufficiently completed, in the judgment of the Comissicz., to permit issuance of the interim operating license, and the time when a final operating license for the facility would otherwise be issued. For -,_-.,,m_,.
6 ~# .- petitions to amend the interim operating license to permit operation at power levels in excess of 5 per centum of the facility's rated full thermal power, the Commission's findings must, of course, be directed to operation at the increased power levels which would be authorized by the amendment. Any final Commission order authorizing the issuance of an interim ~
- operating license pursuant to section 192 (i.e., as distinguished from an order which may be issued by a' presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board under paragraph (c) of f 50.57) of the Act shall recite with specificity the reasons justifying the findings required by that section and 9 50.57(d). The order must be sent upon issuance to the Committees on Inte.rior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee of Environment and Public Works of the 6
Senate. The interim operating license will contain such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary, including the duration of the license and any provision for its extension. Section 192 provides that the authority shall expire on December 31, 1983. The Commission will suspend the interim operating license if it finds that the applicant is not prosecuting the application for the final operating license (and on which a hearing under section 189a. is being conducted) with due diligence. b New Subpart C to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 " Procedures Applicable to Proceedings ^
. y. '... q,., 9-for the Issuance of Interim Operating Licenses for Utilization Facilities Pursuant to Section 192." 4 Subpart C simply adds procedural requirements to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 which are needed to carry out the interim operating licensing authority in section 192 of the Act and implemented in i 50.57(d) of 10 C.r'.R. Part 50. Unlike the hearing on the final operating license, the interim ~ operating licensing process is subject neither to the hearing require-ments of section 189a. of the Act nor to the requirements of subpa'rts A or G of the Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart C provides all of the necessary procedural guidance regarding requests for, and Commission authorization of, interim operating licenses. Briefly, sub, part C provides: For the petition for an interi:n operating license to be filed in the fann of a written motion. The written motion, with supporting affidavits, shall be served on all parties to the proceeding for the issuance of the final operating license. i The initial petition shall be limited to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of full power. Following the issuance of the interim operating license, the licensee may file subsequent petitions with the Comission to amend the interim operating license in staged increases at specific power levels in excess of the initial 5 per centum limitation. The subpart provides general guidance on the contents and requirements for affidavits which may be filed in support of or in opposition to petitions for the issuance, or the amendment, of interim ~ operating licenses. / e
,. The rules provide for prompt publication of notice of both petitions for an interim operating license and for amending such license with a 30-day period for public comment. They provide that the notice shall inform interested persons how they can go about obtaining access to the petition and its supporting affidavits. Such access is needed so that such, persons might, as the rules also provide, file responsive affidavits to the petition. The rules do not specify a time after the 30-day public comment period for Commission action on the petition. In keeping'with the purpose of the interim operating license authority, the rules provide that the Commission will act as expeditiously as possible on petitions for interim operating licenses and for amendments to such licenses. Issuance of an interim operating license or amendment thereto shall be pursuant to a final order of the Commission itself which recites the reasons called for in section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(d) of this chapter. The final order of the Commission shall be subject to judicial review under section 189b. of the Act. The rules restate the procedural safeguards in section 192 to assure that the is:;uance of the interim operating license does not ~. prejudge the outcome of the licensing hearing for the final operating license for that plant or prejudice the rights of any party to the hearing to raise any proper issue in that hearing and to have that issue decided. Moreover, the rules require, as does section 192, that any party to the final operating lii:ense hearing, or any licensing board member conducting such hearing, promptly notify the Commission of any infonnation made available as part of that hearing that the terms and conditions of the interim operating license are not being met, or that
3 = ' f g,- . they are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the facility during the period of the interim operating license will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environment. Finally, the rules state that the Commission will assert its bess. efforts to adopt appropriate administrative rerredies to minimize the need for the issuance of interim operating licenses. Since the amendments whic'h follow implement in the Coenission's regulations new statutory provisions in Public Law 97-XXX, the Commission has found that general notice of proposed rulemaking and public partici-pation therein are unnecessary and impracticable, and that good cause ~~ exists for making the amendments effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The Commission invites all interested persons who desire to submit written comments or suggestions for consideration in connection with the i amendments to send them to the Secretary ef the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Considera-tion will be given to such comments with the view to possible further amendments, if warranted. Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title '10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 2 and 50, are published as e
(.. =- a document subject to codification to be effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. 1. In i 50.57 of 10 CFR Part 50, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows: 9 50.57 Issuance of operating license. (d)(1) An applicant for an operating license, in a case where a ~ hearing is required in a pending proceeding for the final operating license for a facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104b. of the Act, may petition the Commission by a written motion, pursuant to section 192 of the Act and this paragraph (d) for an interim operating, license for such facility authorizing fuel loading, testing, and opera-tion at a specific. power level to be detennined by the Commission, pending t final action by the Canmission on the application for the final operating license. (2) The initial petition for an interim operating licente for each such facility may be filed at any time after the filing of: (i) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards required by sub-section 182b. of the Act; (ii) the final safety evaluation report on the application by the regulatory staff; (iii) the regulatory staff's final detailed statement on the environmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and (iv) a State, local, or utility emergency preparedness plan for the facility. (3) The initial petition for an interim operating license for each such facility, and any interim operating license issued for such, facility
.f
- .s A,-
,e ~ - .. based upon the initial petition, shall be limited initially to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of the facility's rated full thennal power. (4) Following issuance by the Commission of the interim operating license for each such facility, the licensee may petition the Commission to ' amend the license to allow facility operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be deterrained by the Commission, exceeding 5 per ~ centum of the facility's rated full thennal power. (5) Petitions for the issuance of an interim operating license, or for an amendment to such a license allowing operation at a specific power level greater than that authorized in the initial interim operating license, shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the specific facts upon which the petitioner relies to justify issuance of the interim operating license or the amendment thereto. (6) The Commission shall publish notice of each such petition in the Federal Register and in such trade or news publications as the Com-mission deems appropriate to give reasonable notice to persons who might have a potential interest in the grant of such intarim operating license or amendment thereto. The notice shall inform such persons of the arrangements for their access to the petition and supporting affidavits. Any person may file affidavits in support of, or in opposition to, the petition within thirty days after the pn i tion of such notice in the Federal Register. (7) With respect to any such petition, the Commission may issue an interim operating license, or subsequently amend the license to authorize interim operation at a specific power level greater than that authorized
s ,, in the initial interim operating license, as determined by the Comission, upon finding that: (1) in all respects other than the conduct or completion of any required hearing, the requirements of law are met; (ii) in accordance with such requirements, there is reasonable .assu'rance that operation of the facility during the period of the interim operating license in accordance with its tenns and conditions will pro-vide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environ-ment during the period of interim operation; and (iii) denial of such interim operating license will result in delay between the date on which construction of the facility is sufficiently, completed, in the judgment of the Commission, to permit issuance of the interim operating license, and the date on which a final operating license for such facility would otherwise be issued under the Act. (8) Any final Comission order authorizing the issuance of any interim operating license pursuant to section 192 of the Act and this paragraph shall recite with specificity the reasons justifying the find-ings required by that section and this paragraph, and shall be trans- ~, mitted upon such issuance to the Committees,on Interior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. (9) The interim operating license shall become effective upon issuance and shall contain such ' terms and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary, including the duration of the licensa and any pro-vision for the extension thereof. The Commission shall suspend the
e .. interim operating license if it finds that the applicant is not prose-cuting the application for the final operating license with due diligence. (10) The authority under section 192 of the Act and this paragraph shall expire on December 31, 1983. (Authority: (sl 161,192, 68 Stat. 948, Stat. , 42 U.S.C. 2201 and .) 2. A new subpart C is added to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 to read as follows: Subpart C - Procedu}es Applicable to Proceedings for the Issuance of Interim Operating Licenses for Utilization Facilities Pursuant to t Section 192. (Authority: The provisions of this subpart C issued under il 161, 192, 68 Stat. 948, Stat. , 42 U.S.C. 2201 and, i 2.300 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes the procedures applicable in any proceeding upon an application for an operating license for a utilization facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104b. of the Act, in which a hearing is otherwise required pursuant to section 189a., in which the applicant, pursuant to section l'92 of the Act and i 50.57(d) of this chapter, petitions the Commission for an interim operating license for such facility authorizing fuel loading, testing, and operation at a specified power level to be determined by the Commission, pending action
a " ~ ~. ' ~,... 16 - by the Comission on the application for the final operating license for the facility. I 2.301 Filing of petition and accompanying affidavits. (a) Any petition filed by an applicant for an interim operating licimse for each such facility shall be in the form of a written motion. The motion, including the accompanying affidavits, shall be served on all parties to the proceeding for the issuance of the final operating ~ license. Any such petition may be filed at any time after the availa-bility of the documents called for by section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(d) ~ of this chapter. (b) The initial petition for an interim operating license for each I such facility shall, in accordance with section 192 of the Act and 9 50.57(d) of this chapter, be limited initially to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of the facility's rated full thermal power. A licensee, following issuance by the Comission of the interim operating license for each such facility, may file subsequent petitions with the Comission to amend the interim operating license to allow facility operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be determined by the Comission, exceeding 5 per centum of the facility's rated full therinal power. I 5 2.302 Contents of affidavits. The applic. ant's petition for an interim operating license '., hall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the specific facts upon which the petitioner relies to justify issuance of the interim 'O I M
c .? ,t ~ ~ .. operating license or the amendment thereto. Any such affidavit and any affidavit filed in response thereto shall state separately the specific facts and arguments and include the exhibits upon which the person relies. The facts asserted in any affidavit filed shall be sworn to or affirmed by persons having knowledge thereof, and a stateme'nt to this effe'ct shall affirmatively appear in the affidavit.. Except under unusual circumstances, such persons should be those who would be available to orally substantiate the facts asserted as the Commission deems appro-priate. Any such affidavit shall be accompanied by a list of documents relied on to support the facts stated in the affidavit and the place where such documents, other than those issued by the Commission's staff, are, available for inspection. ? 9 2.303 Notice of petition. The Commission shall promptly publish notice of each petition for issuance of an interim operating license and any subsequent petitions for amendments thereto in the Federal Register and in such trade or news publications as the Commission deems appropriate to give reasonable notice to persons who might have a potential interest in the grant of such interim operating license or amendment thereto. The notice shall infonn such persons of the arrangements for their access to the petition and supportin affidavits. Any person may file affidavits in support of, or in opposition to, the petitio'n within 30 days after the publication of such notice in the Federal Register. The Commission thereafter will act as expeditiously as possible to reach a determination on such petitions. j
r ... 6 2.304 Responsive affidavits. Responsive affidavits in opposition to the petition shall be accompanied by a short and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a substantial issue concerning the issuance of the interim operating license or amendment thereto. Any respo.nsive affidavit and any accompanying statement shall be served on all parties to the proceeding for the issuance of the final operating license. 5 2.305 Commission authorization. (a) Issuance of a'h interim operating license or amendment thereto shall be pursuant to a final order of the Commission itself which recites the reasons for such authorization as called for in section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(d) of this chapter. (b) The requirements of section 189a. of the Act with respect to the issuance or amendment of facility licenses shall not apply to the issuance or amendment of such an interim operating license.
- Thus, neither subpart A nor subpart G of this part applies to the consideration of a petition for the issuance or amendment of such an interim operating license.
(c) The final order of the Commission with respect to the issuance of an interim operating license shall be subject to judicial review pur-suant to the Act of December 29' 1950, as amended (Ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1129). ~ 4 1
9_ I 2.306 Hearing on the final operating license. (a) Issuance of an interim operating license under section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(d) of this chapter shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to a proceeding for the issuance of the final , operating license to raise any issue in a hearing required pursuant to section 189a. of the Act. Failure to assert any ground for denial or limitation of such an interim operating license shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the issuance of a sub' sequent final operating license. (b) Any hearing on the application for the final operating license for a facility required pursuant to section 189a. of the Act shall be concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall suspend the interim operating license if it finds that the applicant is not prosecut-ing the application for the final operating license with due diligence. 1 1 2.307 Notification to the Commission. Any party to a hearing required pursuant to section 189a. of the Act on the final operating license for a facility for which an interim oper-ating license has been issued under section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(ci)' ~ of this chapter, and any member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting such hearing, shall promptly notify the Commission of any l information made available as part of such hearing that: (a) the terms and conditi'ons of the interim operating license are not being met, or that (b) such tenns and conditions are not sufficient to provide rea-sonable assurance that operation of the facility will provide adequate
(.,' .. v... 20 - protection to the public health and safety and the environment during the period of the facility's interim operation. I 2.308 Administrative remedies. The Commission shall assert its best efforts to adopt such adminis-trative remedie.:.ts it deems appropriate to minimize the need for the issuance of interim operating licenses pursuant to section 192 of the Act and i 50.57(d) of this chapter. Dated at Washington, D.C., this day of 1981. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission ~. I 6 e l e
n.~ .T L.,
- Tab A to Enclosure (2,
~ Interim operating license language from S.lis7, as reported: SEC. 201. Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 192. INTERIM OPERATING LICENSE. - "a. In any proceeding upon a.n application for an operating license for a utilization facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b. of this Act, in which a hearing is otherwise required pursuant to section 189 a., the applicant may petition the Comission for an interim operating license for such facility authorizing fuel loading, testing, and operation at a specific power level to be detennined by the 3 4 Commission, pending final action by the Commission on the application. The initial petition for an interim operating license for each such facility, and any interim operating license issued for such facility based upon the initial petition, shall be limited initially to power levels not to exceed 5 per centum of rated full thermal power. Following issuance by the Commission of the interim operating license for each such facility, the licensee may file petitions with the Commission to amend the license to allow facility operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be determined by the Commission, exceeding 5 per centum of rated full thermal power. The initial petition for an interim operating license for each such facility may be filed at any time after the filing of: (1) the report of the' Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. required by subsection 182 b.;(2) the final safety evaluation i
r- ) ,0, c.- report on the application by the Nulcear Regulatory Commission staff; (3) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's final detailed statement on the environmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act.of 1969 (83 Stat. 853); and (4) a State, local or utility emergency preparedness plan for the facility. Petitions for the issuance of an interim operating license, or for an amendment to such a license allowing operation at a specific power level greater than that authorized til the in'itial interim operating license. shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the specific facts upon which the petitioner relies to justify issuance of the interim operating license or the amendment thereto. The Comission shall publish notice of each such petition in the Federal Register and in such trade or news publications as the Commission deems appropriate to give reasonable notice to persons who might have a potential interest in the grant of such interim operating license or amendment thereto. Any person may file affidavits in support of, or in opposition to, the peti-tion within thirty days after the publication of such notice in the Federal Register. "b. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the Commission may issue an interim operating license, or amend the license to authorize interim operation at each specific power level greater than that authorized in the initial interim operating license, as determined by the Commission, upon finding that-- "(1) in all respects other than the conduct or completion of any required hearing, the requireme1ts of law are met;
,; e, -s '* "(2) in accordance with such requirements, there is reasonable assurance that operation of the facility dJring the period of the interim operating license in accordance with its terms and condi-tions will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environment during the period of interim operation; ' and "(3) denial of such interim operating license will result in delay between the date on which constPJCtion of the facility is sufficiently completed, in the judgment of the Comission, to pemit issuance of the interim operating license, and the date on which a final operating license for such facility would otherwise issue under this Act. The interim operating license shall become effective upon issuance and shall contain such tems and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary, including the duration of the license and any provision for the extension thereof. Any final order authorizing the issuance of any interim operating license puruant to this section shall recite with specificity the reasons justifying the findings under this subsection, and shall be transmitted upon such issuance to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee or Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The final order of the Commission with respect to the issuance of an interim operating license shall'-be subject to judicial review pursuant to the Act of December 29, 1950, asamended(ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1129)." The requirements of section 189 a. of this Act with respect to the 6 e e
k +.' o ~.~. T -~ d,' ,. issuance or amendment of facility licenses shall not apply to the issuance or amendment of an interim operating license under this section. "c. Any hearing on the application for the final operating license for a facility required pursuant to section 189 a. shall be concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall suspend the interim operating license if it find that the applicarn-is not prosecuting the application for the final operating license with due diligence. Issuance of an interim operating license under subsection b. of this section shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to raist 7.ny issue in a hearing required pursuant to section 189 a.; and failure to assert any ground for denial or limitation of an interim operating license shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the issuance of a subsequent final operating license. Any party to a hearing required pursuant to section 189 a. on the final operating license for a facility for which an interim operating license has been issued under subsection b., and any member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting such hearing, shall promptly notify the Commission of any infomation made available as part of such hearing, that the terms and conditions of the interim operating license are not being met, or +. hat such tems and '- conditions are not sufficient to comply with the provisions of paragraph (2) of subsection b. "d. The Commission is authorized and directed to adopt such administrative remedies as the Commission deems appropriate to minimize the need for issuance of interim operating licenses puruant to this section. "e. The authority under this section shall expire on December 31, 1983." .}}