ML20204F994
| ML20204F994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/22/1986 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608070029 | |
| Download: ML20204F994 (23) | |
Text
-- - _ - -
., 5 PD/L i
PREPARED TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY 1
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRESENTED BY LANDO W. ZECH, JR., CHAIRMAN e
TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING 1
LICENSING REFORM AND OTHER MATTERS 1
< SUBMITTED: JULY 22, 1986 8600070029 860722 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
t Mr. Chairman, members of the Comittee, today marks my first appearance before this Subcommittee in my new role as Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission. My fellow Comissioners and I are pleased to appear before you today for the purpose of discussing 4 issues: (1) nuclear power plant licensing reform legislation, (2) whether the NRC should be restructured as an agency headed by a single administrator, (3) whether the NRC should have an
,. Inspector General, and (4) whether an independent Nuclear Safety Board should be established to investigate significant events involving nuclear facilities -
or materials.
The Comission believes that the time is long overdue for licensing reform legislation. The current NRC licensing process has rot changed substantially since it was originally enacted 32 years ago in the Atomic Energy Act. That licensing process was a prudent course to folicw when the nuclear power industry was in its early conceptual and development years. In the early years there were many first-time nuclear power plant applicants, designers and constructors, and numerous developmental design concepts. Accordingly, the process was structured to allow licensing decisions to be made while design work was still in progress and to focus en case-specific reviews of individual
' plant-site conside'ra'tions.
Cne of the primary shortccmings of the present system is that it lacks predictability and stability. This is due in large part to the configuration and implementation of the twc-step licensing process. The design of the plant
o and the regulatory standards for reviewing the design are not well fixed at the time a construction permit application is filed. The design is actually developed during the course of construction to meet regulatory standards which may also change.
The inspections, tests, and analysis which need to be performed are not fully defined until the operating license review has been well under way. Thus, the Commission and the applicant do not reach agreement at an early stage with respect to the detailed implementatien of NRC requirements. Extensive additional tests and analyses are sometimes required late in the construction process. This may lead to plant modification which could have been avoided by
~
identifying the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria at the time the plant was licensed for construction.
With the maturation of the industry, it is now possible to describe and evaluate (a) standardized plant designs on a generic basis, (b) essentially complete designs prior to plant construction, and (c) proposed plant sites withcut plant design details. Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that the licensing process must be reformed to reflect these and other developments concerning the licensing review of nuclear facilities.
~
After a thorough review of its current licensing process, the Commission has determined that the process could be improved and stabilized if Congress enacted legislation which encouraged ruclear power plant standardization, facilitated early site reviews, and permitted issuance of a ccmbined license to construct and to operate nuclear power plants. NRC (H.R.1447), 00E (H.R.2488),
3-
\
l and former Congressman (now Senator) Broyhill'(H.R.1029) have all submitted legislative proposals which contain these features.
Many of the deficiencies in the licensing process could be eliminated through standardization of designs. Standardization should ideally encompass essentially complete design of the nuclear steam supply system and of the balance of plant components which have safety significance and which can be designed independent of specific sites.
Under the proposed legislation, procedures would be established which would '
provide for Comission consideration of standardized designs that could be generally approved in advance of the receipt of a specific license application.
Subsequently, if a utiit ty proposes to use the approved design, no further review of the design would be required, except to assure that the conditions for approval of the design have been complied with and that the design is suitable for the site selected.
The Commission believes it is important for Congress to endorse standardization formally through enactment of licensing reform legislation that encourages the use of standardized designs. The use of standardized designs offers the potential to reduce today's lengthy can'struction times and costs. More significantly, froIn'the viewpoint of the Commission, standardization should facilitate high quality construction and safe operation of specific plant designs. For example, standardi:ation would stimulate standardized programs of quality control and make for better, faster training of cperators and workers.
s Also, experience gained from one or another aspect of operations would be relevant to the operating personnel, equipment, maintenance and procedures of standardized plants wherever they are located. Exchanges of information between utilities would be more valuable. Lessons learned could be readily applied to other plants using the same standardized designs. In sum, standardized designs could improve plant safety and reliability.
The proposed legislation also adds new sections intended to permit the resolution of site-specific questions at an early stage in the licensing process. The legislative proposals include provisions which authorize the Commission to issue a site permit even though no application for a construction permit or a combined CP/0L has been filed. These sections have been proposed to facilitate early identification and resolution of site issues after giving an opportunity for public participation. Subsequer.t facility applications could reference a site permit, and final site determinations would be binding unless there is a substantial reason not to do so.
Finally, the legislative proposals before Congress would permit the NRC to issue a ccmbined construction permit and operating license. The NRC could not adopt fully one-step licensing as defined in the bills without legislation. A l
one-step licensing process would add further predictability and stability to the licensing process by giving the licensee greater assurance that if the facility is constructed in accordance with the terms of the CP/0L license, the I
l facility will be permitted to operate once construction is complete without the pcssibility, as under the present system, that operation of a completed plant may be postponed indefinitely solely for procedura, reasons.
l l
l
0 Under the current statutory provisions, a public hearing may need to be held prior to issuance of an operating license. The hearing takes place long after the applicant has made many crucial decisions. Under the legislative proposals, opportunities for public participation in public hearings will be I
focused on approvals at the beginning of the process before construction is commenced and long before any substantial construction has occurred. This should enhance the effectiveness of public participation because the hearing would take place before firm decisions are made by the applicant.
The proposals also provide that construction quality will be assured through a program of inspection tests and analyses. The program will be specified in the combined construction permit and operating license when it is issued, after cpportunity for public hearing.
The NRC does not support statutory backfit criteria. It believes that backfitting can best be handled administratively urder its recently prcmulgated backfitting rule. We may need the flexibility to make adjustments to that rule as experience is gained in its application. A statutory provision on backfitting might preclude such modifications.
Although the NRC, DOE, and Broyhill legislative proposals are quite similar, there are differences between the proposals. The differences are small. An example of a difference is that under the NRC proposal the combined CP/0L standardized design licensing reforms would not apply to breeder reactors. 00E ano Senator Broyhill would have the reforms apply to applications for breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. Because the Commission has not recently
o completed a review of a license application for a breeder reactor or a reprocessing plant, we are reluctant, in the absence of experience, to recomend the streamlined procedures set forth in our legislative proposal. A detailed comparison of the NRC, DOE and Broyhill proposals is appended to this testimony.
The Commission urges Congress to enact licensing reform legislation. Although no new power reactors have been ordered for several years, the statutory
, . structure for the existing licensing process shculd be changed now. The one-step licensing process envisioned by the bill can only be brought about by -
legislation. The licensing system ought not to be an unwarranted obstacle to the continued timely availability of nuclear power to help provide a share of the national energy mix when the need for new generation capacity arises.
With respect to whether the NRC should be restructured as an agency headed by a single administrator, each Comissioner has given this matter considerable thought and a majority of the Comission supports the single administrator concept.
In recent years there have been three independent examinations of the structure of the Comission. Following the Three Mile Island accident, both the Kemeny
'Comission and the'Rogovin Special Inquiry Group reccmended that the NRC be headed by a single administrator. In a strongly worded statement, the Kemeny Comission declared that "as presently constituted, the NRC does not possess the organizational and management capab'lities necessary for the effective pursuit of safety goals." The Rogovin Inquiry Group concluded that "the
l 7
o central and overwhelming need is for legislative and executive reorganizatien to establish a single chief executive with the clear authority to supervise and direct the entire NRC staff.' More recently the Grace Ccmission recommended that Congress enact legislation which would strengthen the authority of the Chairman as the chief executive officer of the agency.
In large part the central focus of the debate on the structure of the NRC is whether the public is better served by an organization in which important decisions are made through a collegial process or by a more efficiently managed agency headed by a single decision-maker. In addressing this issue the Rogovin Inquiry Group stated "there is not an agency in Government that would not better provide for a diversity of views if it were headed by a Commission. It is not likely, however, that any of these agencies would be as well managed."
In 1954 when Congress enacted the Atomic Energy Act, one of the prica'ry mandates of the agency was to regulate the development of the ccmmercial uses of nuclear power which were then in their infancy. In the ensuing 32 years much has changed. One hundred commercial nuclear plants have been licensed to operate, and the Commission's primary focus now is on ensuring the safe I operation of those operating plants. In carrying out this role, it is the ;
Comission's view that efficient management is increasingly important. !
Collegial decision-making and efficient management are not well suited for each l other. For example, prompt decision-making is difficult because time must be afforded for each Commissioner to consider the issues and provide separate views. As a result, there is frequently delay in responding to requests from I
i 1
I l
l
l
- O Congress, in issuing adjudicatory decisions, making rulemaking decisions, and providing policy direction to the NRC staff. Debate of issues is often unduly prolonged in an attempt to develop a consensus position, and because of the diverse Comissioner views, the NRC staff and the public sometimes receive confused signals.
Moreover, the Government in the Sunshine Act has greatly diminished the exchange of diverse views which is the primary benefit of a Comission structure. The Commission cannot usually meet as a body except in public meetings. This requirement that Comission deliberations be held in scheduled _
public meetings greatly diminishes the opportunity and quality of such exchange of views. The Administrative Conference recently looked at this issue and reached the same conclusion. In a 1984 report to the Congress, it conclu'ded that an undesirable effect of the Sunshine Act had been a diminution of collegiality in multi-member agencies.
In the event that Congress does not enact legislation to create a single administrator, then the Commission would encourage review of the Sunshine Act to eliminate or reduce the problem for collegial decision-making.
l i Regarding the third issue, the Commission opposes H.R. 4835 which would establish an Inspector General within the NRC. The Comission's audit and investigative unit for internal affairs--the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA)--has direct access to the Comissioners, and has all the necessary independence to do its jcb. Moreover, since the Agency is relatively small, I
the Comission believes it is important that OIA remain a necessary management l
_g.
extension of the Comission in overseeing the programs and activities of the NRC. Establishment of an independent Inspector General would take some of those management benefits away from the Comission. In the absence of any showing that statutory independence is needed for 0IA, the Commission opposes establishment of an office which would lessen its ability to direct the functioning of the Agency and which would impose new, burdensome, and probably costly, requirements on the Comission. -
Finally, the Ccmmission opposes H.R. 4648 which would establish an independent 1 Nuclear Safety Board. In 1984 Congress directed the NRC to conduct a study of -
the need for and feasibility of an independent organization responsible for .
conducting investigations of significant safety events at NRC-licensed facilities. In response, the NRC centracted with Brookhaven National l Laboratory. Brookhaven submitted its final report to the NRC in February of i 1985.
I I
Brookhaven recommended the establishment of a statutory office of nuclear safety, headed by a Director reporting to the Ccmmission. Hcwever, the study stated current practices for investigations of operating events have been conducted in a " proficient and technically ccmpetent" manner.
i While Brookhaven suggested a number of improvements for event investigations, it noted that, for the most part, these improvements could be implemented within the present organization structure. Many of the improvements recommended by Brcokhaven have been adopted as part of the newly established and successful NRC Incident Investigation Program.
o Based on the Comission's review of the Brookhaven Report and other studies of the issue, the Commission believes that there are no major deficiencies in the NRC accident investigation program that would warrant fonnation of an independent Nuclear Safety Board.
Rather than to correct an existing deficiency, the justification for a Nuclear Safety Board appears to rest almost entirely upon a perceived need to eliminate any potential conflict of interest in order to gain increased public, media,
- and Congressional confidence in the investigatory process. It is argued that a Nuclear Safety Board would increase confidence in the investigatory process by relieving the NRC of the responsibility to investigate and determine the cause of an event to which the NRC's own regulatory activities might have been contributing facters.
Under H.R. 4648, the Nuclear Safety Board could direct the NRC to perform the desired investigations and then review the results. This would not create the perception of an " independent investigation." On the other hand, if the Nuclear Safety Board would conduct its own investigations, then the resources contemplated for the Board would need to be substantially augmented.
It appears that its task could be comparable to that of the National Transportation Safety Board. That Board currently has approximately 320 employees and its budget is in excess of 22 million dollars per year. While we are not suggesting that the Board would need, or should be given, a staff of 320, the desired investigative results would not be obtained by transferring the 40-45 full-time employees currently assigned to NRC's Office for Analysis
H
+
l 11 and Evaluation of Operational Data to the Nuclear Safety Board. Either the resources allocated must be substantially increased or the expectations about the results must be substantially reduced.
A Nuclear Safety Board would also likely lead to a duplication of existing Ccmmission functions. Further the Board's activities might hinder the Ccmmission from acting effectively in the event of an incident. And in any event, the< Board could well be preempted by a presidential commission if there were a significant accident in the future.
This concludes the Commission's prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important matters with the Committee this morning and will be glad to respond to any questions you may have.
- O COMPARISON OF H.R. 1447 (NRC BILL) H.R. 2488 (DOE BILL) AND H.R. 1029 (BROYHILL BILL) - STANDARDIZATION AND LICENSING REPORN NRC BILL DOE BILL BROYHILL BILL Short Title
" Nuclear Powerplant Licensing " Nuclear Pacility Standardiza- " Nuclear Powerplant Standardization and Standardization Act of 1985* Act of 1985* Act of 1985*
Sec. 2 - Findings and Purposes Sec. 2 - Findings and Purposes Sec. 2 - Findings and Purposes Sec. 2(a) Essentially same except DOE Sec. 2(a) virtually identical to refers to " national interest" NRC bill' and meeting " safety and environmental criteria" while NRC refers to " clear and coordinated energy policy" and meeting " applicable criteria".
Sec. 2.(a)(1)-(2) - Interstate same Sec. 2(a)(1-5) - Virtually Commerce is affected; public identical to NRC bill participation should be assured Sec. 2(a)(3) & (4) - Licensing Essentially the same but condensed and public health and safety into 2(a)(3).
enhanced by use of preapproved or standardized design.
Sec. 2(a)(5) - Early site Essentially the same but is in selection will facilitate 2(a)(4).
licensing process.
Sec. 2(a)(6) - Licensing decision Sec. 2(a)(5) - Similar: Sec. 2(a)(6) Similar: licensing should be made early and if Licensing decision should be and regulatory process will be i
a.
2 IIRC BILL DOE HILL BROYHILL BILL en opport unity f or a hearing has made early and licensing will facilitated if licensing decisions been provided, no further adjudi- be facilitated if issues are made at the earliest feasible cation unless evidentiary showing resolved in an earlier phase of the process and issues has been made, proceeding are not reconsid- resolved in NRC proceedings are ered in the absence of a showing not subject to further adjudication under this Act and NRC in the absence of a substantial regulations. evidentiary showing required by this Act and NRC regulations.
Sec. 2(a)(7) - Licensing should Nothing similar Nothing similar be timely and adjudicatory ,
procedures invoked only where dispute can be resolved with sufficient accuracy through such procedures.
Sec. 2(a)(8) - Regulatory process Sec. 2(a)(6) - same as HRC bill Sec. 2(a)(7) same as NRC should provide greater stability.
Sec. 2(a)(9) - It is appropriate Sec. 2(a)(7) - Essentially the Sec. 2(a)(8) Essentially the same for NRC to give limited consid- same eration to economics.
(Not in NRC bill) Sec. 2(a)(8) - NRC should ( Not in Broyhill bill) adopt criteria to govern changes in regulatory requirements (backfitting).
Sec. 2(b) - Purposes Sec. 2(b) - same Sec. 2(b) - same Sec. 2(b)(1) - Pacilitate use of Sec. 2(b)(1) - Essentially the Sec. 2(b)(1) - identical to NRC preapproved sites / standardized same designs Sec. 2(b)(2) - Provide for Sec. 2(b)(2) - Same except Sec. 2(b)(2) - identical to DOE issuance of combined Cp/OL that CP/OL is to enhance public health and safety as i
3 NRC DILL DOE BILL BROYHILL DILL opposed to assuring continued protection Sac. 2(b)(3) - Improve stability Sec. 2(b)(3) - Essentially the Sec. 2(b)(3) - Essentially the same of licensing standards and same finality of prior licensing approvals TITLE I - SITING AND LICENSING TITLE I - LICENSING
& REGULATORY REFORM Sec. 101 - Amends 5 185 of AE Act Sec. 103 - same Sec. 103 - same Sec. 185.a - Eliminates earliest Sec. 185.a - Same as NRC Similar to DOE approach but adds and latest completion date for proposal but further amends statutory requirement that applicant Cps. section to remove provisions be competent providing for no OL if good cause showing that issuance of OL would not be in accordance with Act. (Required finding that OL will be in conformity with Act and regs same as in NRC bill.)
Sac. 185.b (Cp/0L) Sec. 185.b
- applies only to " thermal - applies to same class of - same as DOE nautron generating facilities" facilities as NRC provision but adds breeders and repro-cessing (* commercial produc-tion or utilization facility")
- permits combined - Essentially the same - Essentially the same but also CP/OL upon certain findings adds statutory requirement that applicant be competent.
- provides opportunity for - same - same hearing pursuant to S 189 of AE Act I
4 NRC BILL DOE BILL DROYHILL BILL
- inspections, tests, anal- - same - no comparable provision yses, and acceptance criteria to be incorporated in the combined license
- Not in NRC -
Sec. 185(b)(1) - CP/OL Not in Droyhill must include a,*phasec approval procedure for construction quality assurance"
- Not in NRC ,
Sec. 185(b)(1) - NRC may Not in Broyhill I also provide for inspections by
- 1icensee designated QA inspectors, designated engineering and inspection representatives, and Commission inspectors
- Prior to operation NRC shall - Same, except 30-day - Utility must notify NRC at least 9 publish 30-day public notice of notice based on utility months prior to intended date to intended operation. Hearing notice to NRC of readiness to commence operation. Upon receipt of only where " good cause*, operate and no requirement of notice Commission is to publish 30 day where there is substantial " good cause* notice for members of public to request dispute of fact that cannot hearing. Hearing will be held if issue be resolved without a hearing, could not have been raised in earlier and either issue was not and proceedings involving facility, site, could not have been raised in or designs issue consists of original CP/OL proceeding, or substantial factual dispute that cannot a material non-conformance be resolved with sufficient accuracy with the license exists which except at hearing; Commission decision could prevent safe facility depends on resolution of issue, and with operation. respect to issues involving verification, inspection and testing necessary to establish proper construction there has been a noncon-formance with license which could materially and adversely affect safe
, operation of facility.
5 i
e NRC BILL DOE DILL OROYHILL BILL
- If hearing is to be held, - Essentially the same - Doesn't provide for post-commencement operation may commence prior hearings, to hearing unless NRC finds hearing must be prior to operation in order to protect safety or security.
- - After Commission submitted - No compar'able provision - No comparable provision S.836 to Congress, majority of Commission informed Congress that bill should be modified to include provision which provide prior to commencement of 1 operation NRC shall determine whether construction has been completed in conformance with terms of CP/OL and NRC regulations.
After hearing, CP/OL may - Nothing similar - Similar to NRC but no " good cause be modified; operation should standard" be based on CP/OL unless is good cause.
Sec. 185(c) - No modifications Sec. 104 adds to AE Act a Sec. - Sec. 104 adds to AE Act a Sec. 30 to final determination on an 187 entitled " Modifications" entitled " Modification of Regulatory issue previously considered and Sec. 187(a). NRC shall not Requirements." No modifications to decided in "any proceeding for require modifications in regulatory requirements unless the the issuance of a permit or design approvals, site proposed change will substantially license for that facility, permits, facilities (including enhance the public health and safety facility site, or approval of breeders and reprocessing or common defense and security as a design ... under S 194* unless plants) holding a CP, OL, or result of improved overall safety of significant new information combined Cp/OL, or any design, facility operation and overall improve-indicates that the change is procedure, or organization for ment is justified. Changes made only required to protect safety or any facility (including breed- after a systematic, centralized security a_nd safety or security ers and reprocessing plants), documented review. All changes shall be will be substantially enhanced, unless it determines substan- made by rule, regulation or order.
(Note: Similar provisions tial improvement in overall i
6 e
flRC BILL DOE BILL DROYHILL BILL repeated again for early site safety of facility operation in 193(f) and for standard required under the AE Act designs in 194(e).) would result, and the improve-ment is justified taking into account specified mandatory factors.
- Potential' risk reduction to public from accidental off-site releases
- Impact on worker exposure
- Installation and continu-ing costs, including construc-tion delay and continuity of service
- Potential safety impact of changes in plant or oper-ational complexity including effect on other requirements
- Commission resource burden
- Potential impact of facility differences on relevance and practicality of change
- Whether change is interim or final and justification if interim
- Such other matters as commission deems necessary Sec. 187(b) - Commission shall establish centralized process
e t
NRC BILL DOE DILL BROYHILL DILL to consider changes. Changes made only by license amendment, rule, or order. Section dops not apply to immediately effective plans to protect safety or security.
Sec. 103 - Early Site Review Sec. 102 - Early Site Approval Sec. 102 - Early Site Approval Adds new S 193 to AE Act Adds new S 194 to AE Act that Adds new 5 194 to AE Act that is providing for site permits for is the same as NRC S 193 except the same as NRC 5 193 except that production and utilization , that facilities.
- - renewals must be filed 12-18 - no specified time period for filing mos. before 10 yr. expiration date renewal requests and no limit on number (NRC 12-36 mos.), and renewals (no of renewals limit) for 10 year periods (HRC refers to *a renewal" for 5-10 - ten year renewal period yrs)
- - DOE bill requires renewals - renewal shall be granted unless unless there is significant significant new information that makes new information showing It likely site will not comply with this non-compliance with Act or Act or NRC regulations.
regulations. NRC bill requires a renewal unless will not comply with Act or regs.
- DOE bill has no specific No provision on deferral of fees i provision regarding deferral of license fees (HRC 5 193(b) 6 5 193(d)(2)).
- NRC bill (S 193(f)) DOE bill precludes relitiga- Sec. 105. No reconsideration of issues precludes relitigation or tion at hearings, and does not resolved in any other proceeding under rereview of considered and speak of reteview itself, but this Act in the absence of significant decided issues unless relitigation is allowed if new information substantially affecting there is significant new informa- there is material factual conclusions reached in other proceeding.
Lion which requires change to dispute; the issue could not s
e 8
+
NRC BILL DOE BILL DROYHILL BILL protect safety or security and have been considered and i
the change will substantially decided earlier or there is enhance safety or security. noncompliance with the site permit that could materially and adversely affect safe operation.
- DOE bill provides for - same as DOE
< judicial review of site permits under S 189(b).
NRC bill is silent on issue.
Sec. 104 - Approval of Designs Sec. 101. - Approval of - same as DOE (amends AE Act by adding S 194) Standardized Designs (amends AE Act by adding S 193)
Same as NRC except Same as NRC except:
- applies to all production - same as DOE '
and utilization facilities (including breeders and repro-cessing plants). NRC applies only to thermal neutron reactor power plants.
- - NRC shall have procedures - same as DOE for review of major sub-systems; NRC bill says *may".
- - DOE bill provides for - 10 year renewals like DOE except renewals for 10 year periods, no time specified for filing application if renewal application filed for renewal 12-18 mos. before expiration.
NRC bill calls for renewal of an additional 5-10 yrs if application filed 12-36 mos.
before expiration.
4 4
e
- 9 g b
HRC BILL DOE BILL HHOYHILL BILL
- - DOE bill requires - same as DOC renewals unless there is significant new information showing noncompliance with Act or regs. NRC bill requires a renewal unless noncompliance with Act or re.gs.
j - DOE provisions on - No r econsideration of issues relitigation are the same as in resolved in any other proceeding
. 5 193, and differ from NRC bill under this Act in the absence of in same way. significant new information sub-stantially affecting conclusions
- NRC application of amend- reached in other proceeding. However, ments to design approvals to CP bill also states in another section or CP/OL applications filed that design approvals cannot be before effective amendment date, modified at all except in a design where applicant opposes this, approval amendment proceeding, subject to DOE statutory backfit '
provision in the new Sec. 187 - Amendments would be subject to entitled ' modifications." NRC backfit criteria contained in uses the relitigation contention Icgislation.
here which requires the additional finding (not in DOE bill) that the amendment is required to protect safety or security.
- Under DOC bill design - same as DOE approvals are specifically subject to judicial review under S 189(b).
l - NHC bill allows Cp, - DOE bill permits " deviations - same as DOE CP/OL, OL applicants to seek from all permits, licenses, and approval f r om NRC of a " variance" design approvals without NRC approval, from design approval if variance unless there is change in technical I complies with Act and regs. specifications or an unreviewed safety question, in which case an amendment to the permit, license or approval is required.
i
e 10 ,
4 6
NRC BILL DOE BILL BROYHILL BILL S2c. 201 Amends Sec. 11 of.AE Act to Nothing comparable Nothing comparable dafine thermal neutron facility .
Sic. 202 Dsfines " standardized design" Not defined Not defined Sic. 203 Hzquires regulations to No comparable provision Nothing comparable implement Act within 180 days Sac. 301 Sec. 201 Conforms S 105(c) of AE Act similar Sec. 201 - similar but unlike NRC and
" Antitrust Provisions
- DOE bills subjects site permit reviews to anti-trust reviews.
Sec. 302, 304 Equivalent Provision (Sections 203-204 A ends existing sections of AE DOE bill amends S 186(a) like Sec. 203-206 - similar to DOE provision Act to reference design approvals NRC bill. Also, unlike NRC and site permits in 5 161(o) and bill, includes site permits
- 5 186(a) and design approvals in S 191(a) dealing with atomic safety and licensing boards. Does not add reference to denign approvals or site permits in S 161(o)
- thus may be no inspections of site permits.or design approvals allowed.
~
e 11 ,
o o
NRC BILL DOE DILL BROYHILL BILL No comparable provision No comparable provision Sec. 204. Adds reference to site permits and design approvals to Sec. 187 dealing with modification.of licenses.
Sec. 205. Makes conforming changes to Sec. 189a on hearings and extends so-called Sholly authority for issuance immediately effective amendments to combined Cp/OLs.
Sec. 207. Updates cur ent statutory citations.
Sec. 305 Sec. 305 Table of contents Similar Similar, but changes spread throughout bill.
Sec. 303 Sec. 202 Amends 5 182(b) of Act to require Seems to require ACRS review Sec. 202 - No ACRS review required for ACRS review of site permits, of all applications to grant, site permits or design approvals or design approvals, amendments to revTeU, or amend all Cps, amendments thereto.
site permits and design approvals Cp/OLs, OLs, site permits, and referred for review by Commis- design approvals.
sion, and beginning of operation in case of combined CP/OL.
Sec. 401 All sections of Act take effect No comparable provision No comparable provision on date of enactment and apply to pending proceedings.
No comparable provision No comparable provision Sec. 207 - makes conforming changes to references to Administrative procedure Act.
l l
I t
-