ML20236C950
| ML20236C950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1989 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR7897, RULE-PR-2 PR-890216, NUDOCS 8903220388 | |
| Download: ML20236C950 (4) | |
Text
.
DOCKET NUMBERg3%
D e
^.
PROPOSED RULE --
[7590013 cSv FA? N'd.-
-'%c IlVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Statement of Policy on Litigation of TMI-Related ISEuRB 21 P6 :43 in Power Reactor Operating License Proceedings; Revocation of Superseded Policy Statement Concern.j g p
TMI-Related Procedures
'953C5 !
.5 M r.1 o AGENCY:
huclear Regulatory Commission.
j
.l ACTION:
Policy statement; revocation of policy statement.
1
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is issuing an updated policy statement on the manner in which the applicant and any intervening party to an NRC operating license proceeding can raise a challenge to those i
requirements imposed upon utilities seeking an operating license as a result of the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
In addition, the Comission is revoking another policy statement relating to requirements imposed after the Three Mile Island accident as super'seded by M*
subsequent agency action.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
March 27, 1989.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
20555. Telephone:
(301)492-1634.
1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Following the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2), the Commission took a number of regulatory measures l
designed to provide the appropriate mechanisms for assimilating the i
regulatory changes resulting fro:n TMI-E into the ongoing process for facility licensing. Principal among these was the Commission's issuance of l
l policy guidance on how the regulatory requirements imposed as a result of gj32g38ss90216 2 54FR7897 pyg l
\\
v
'=
[7590-01]
1 the TMI-2 incident were to be considered in the context of ongoing adjudicatory licensing proceedings and its suspension and later revision of
)
the existing rule by which the initial decision of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board authorizing issuance of a construction permit or an operating license was considered to be imediately effective.
In the years since the accident, however, the Comission has taken a variety of responsive regulatory actions that raise questions about the continuing efficacy of its earlier policy statements concerning litigation of TMI-related issues and the suspension of the immediate effectiveness rule.
Since the accident, the agency has identified various " lessons learned" from the TMI-2 accident, which are embodied in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" as well as specific licenses and orders.
It also has implemented changes to update regulatory requirements on the basis of these " lessons." See, n, 10 CFR 50.44 (hydrogen control);
50.47, 50.54(s), and Appendix E to Part 50 (emergency planning); 50.54(w)
(propertyinsurance);Part55(operatortraining). The NRC staff has advised the Comission that all regulatory changes needed to implement
- NUREG-0737 have been completed and that compliance with existing regulations and orders i: a sufficient response to all applicable TMI-2 accident " lessons learned." As a result, the Comission now believes further action is appropriate regarding the policy established by several policy statements published after the TMI-2 accident and discussed below.
l l
2
[7590-01]
i I.
Commission Policy on Litigation of TMI-Related Issues in Power Reactor Operating License Proceedings Current Commission policy on the appropriate parameters for applicant and intervenor litigation of TMI-related issues in operating license proceedings is set forth in a Commission Policy Statement, CLI 80-42, 1
12 NRC 654 (1980) (45 FR 85236; Dec. 24, 1980). However, the 1
implementation of TMI "lassons learned" and other events have rendered much of the background discussion in this 1980 policy statement outdated and confusing. Also, while the Commission previously noted that very few operating license hearings have involved the litigation of these issues (48 FR 13987,13988; Apr.1,1983), there nonetheless are facilities under construction for which certain specific guidance afforded by the policy statement could be pertinent. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind that 1980 policy statement, but to provide the following
(
supplemental guidance for the litigation of TMI-related issues in operating license proceedings:
In conjunction with existing NRC regulations, the guidance for new operating licenses found in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," can serve as the basis upon which the NRC staff niakes a determination about whether an applicant meets the necessary requirements for issuance of an operating license as the NUREG-0737 guidance interprets, refines, or quantifies the general language of existing regulations. The parties to a proceeding may challenge the guidance in NUREG-0737 as unnecessary on the one hand or insufficient on the other to meet existing regulations.
Parties to a proceeding, the Licensing Boards, and the Appeal Boards also should heed the additional Commission guidance regarding the 3
[7590-01]
litigation of TMI-related issues given in Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 (1931).
II.
Policy Statement Relating to Immediate Effectiveness Prior to the Commission's action in November 1979 adoptir.g the now rescinded Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 (44 FR 65049),1 the Commission *s post-TMI policy relating to immediate effectiveness of Licensing Board initial decisions authorizing the issuance of construction permits and operating licenses was set forth in an October 1979 policy statement,
" Interim Statement of Policy and Procedure" (44 FR 58559).
This policy statement was superseded by the November 1979 action and is hereby formally rescindeu.
The Commission's existing immediate effectiveness procedures are found in 10 CFR 2.764.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this day of k u. e, 1989.
I Por the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
h
/
9 s
D
[ Secretary of the(Comission.
Samuel J. Chilk, IThe existing Appendix B to Part 2. " General Statement of Policy and Procedures Concerning Petitions Parsuant to 2.802 for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below Reguiatory Concern," which was issued on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839), is not related to this policy statemed.
4 I
i