ML20236B779
| ML20236B779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32060, REF-10CFR9.7 AC61-2-95, M890222, NUDOCS 8903210286 | |
| Download: ML20236B779 (4) | |
Text
-
m- -
1 95 Nt00g.
I I
,J
/
S
' 'q UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
- y*~J' NUCL EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO:
M890222 o.
L W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
{i
/
March 1, 1989
- OFFICE OF THE
. SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victc>r Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for ations FROM:
Samuel J.'Chilk, Secre 7
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - B3I NG ON FINAL RULE ON EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION; AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR
-NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS, 10:00 A.M.,
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1989, COMMIS-SIONERS'-CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT j
NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC i
ATTENDANCE) l h
The Commission was briefed by the General Counsel and the staff on a recommended final rule on early site-permits, certification of standard nuclear power plant designs, and combined construction / operating licenses for nuclear power plants (documented in SECY-89-036 and released at the meeting).
Prior to voting on the proposed final rule, the Commission j
requested the staff to comment on the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in its letter dated February 15, 1989, and recommend any modification to the l
proposed rule believed appropriate.
i (EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
3/6/89)
(Subsequent to the meeting, on February 24, 1989, the Office of I
the Secretary issued a correction notice to SECY-89-036 (attached) as discussed by the General Counsel at the meeting.)
cc:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts
)
Commissioner Carr l
Commissioner Rogers j
j0) l
}-
Commissioner Curtiss OGC y/I GPA PAR - Advance
/
A CS - Pl-124
/
I l
8903210'286 890301
?
{
- m --
-__.-_.---q
.w-
~
d l
.]
i i
-a e FEBRUARY 24, 1989.
M C
O R
R E
C T
I O
N N
O T
I C' -E TO ALL HOLDERS OF SECY-89-036 RULEMAKING ON EARLY SITE' PERMITS, DESIGN CERTIFICATION, AND CCMBINED LICENSES (COtiMISSION ACTION ITEM) i i
PLEASE REPLACE PAGES 25 AND 38, ENCLOSURE 1 TO SECY-89-036,
'UITH THE,ATTIiCHED PAGES.
THE CORRECTIONS COMPRISE OF THE FOILOWItiG:
4 i
-}
PAGE 25:
LiliE 2 OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, DELETE THE WORD "NOT."
lit lE 2 SHOULD READ:
" COMPLIANCE BE REQUIRED ONLY I
WHEN NON-COMPLIANCE WOULDxHAVE AN ADVERSE...."
i
-l l
PAGE 38:
LII;E 5 OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, DELETE THE WORD
\\
"ONLY."
LINE 5 SHOULD READ:
"... DOE ARGUES THAT THERE SHOULD BE'NO...."
l l
ATTACHMENTS:
AS STATED I
I THE SECRETARIAT i
~'
3
~'
E
)\\
25' 6
The Commission'is'not-adopting Bishop, Cook's suggestion that' complianc'e be~ required only when non-compl.iance' wouldmoe. h impact on safety. Licensees seeking relief from a design certification, who believe that non-compliance would have no adverse impact on= safety, shouldl request an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12. 'Neither is the Commission adopting the suggestion of the U.S. Chamber of Comerce.that cost-benefit analysis be used to detemine whether to impose backfits on designs to bring them into compliance with applicable regulations.
The j
Atomic Energy Act allows the Commission to consider costs only in deciding whether'to establish or whether to enforce through backfitting safety requirements that are not necessary to provide adequate protection.
See UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108,120 (1987).
The final rule, like the proposed rule..pemits applicants for i
combined licenses issued unde' the rule, and licensees of a plant built r
according.to a certified design, to request an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 from a rule certifying a design. Among the comments on the.
appropriateness of using i 50.12 in the standardization context were NIRS' coment that i 50.12 permitteo exemptions at a "whim" and DOE's suggestion that no exemptions should be granted at all. Out of resp'ct e
for the unforeseen, the Comission has decided to adhere to i 50.12, but the final rule does require that, before an exemption can be granted, the effect which the exemption might have on standardization and its safety benefits must be considered.
i i
As a further guard against a loss of standardization, the final rule, again like the proposed rulei, also prohibits a licensee of a plant
)
j J
f 38
<... c Power Reactor Development Co..'v. Electrical. Workers, 367 U.S. 396 -
~(1961),isnottothecontrary. The issue in that case was not whether the Comission had the authority to combine a construction permit with a conditional operating license, but whether the Comission could postpone the ultimate safety findings until construction was complete. The Court.
ruled that the Comission could, and found support for its conclusion in Section 185, which showed, the Court said, that " Congress contemplated a
, +
step-by-step procedure." 367 U.S. at 405. But the Court did not say, "Section 185_ mandates a separate issuance of an operating license, notwithstanding Section 161h." The interpretation of Section 161h of the Act was not at issue.
,b.
Hearings After Construction is Complete.
The first issue concerning hearings after completion of constru'etion under a combined license is whether there should be such hearings at all.
Most comenters, whatever their affiliation, believe that there should be the opportunity for such hearings. They disagree only over how limited the hearings should be. :CatgcDOE argues that there'should be n i
such hearings at all. As-the principal support for its argument, DOE i
cites the section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which says, in effect, that adjudication is not required in cases in which the agency decision rests " solely on inspections, tests, or elections".
See 5 U.S.C.554(a)(3). Under Part S2's provisions on combined licenses, a combined license will contain the tests, inspection, and analyses, ahd acceptance criteria therefor, which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and i
A