ML20236S576
| ML20236S576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Nye E TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236S578 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807270058 | |
| Download: ML20236S576 (3) | |
Text
- - - _ - _
UNITED STATES f
'*k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
5 j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 k.
July 16, 1998--
9,,,9 CHARMAN.
l
- Mr. Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Texas Utilities Company ;
- Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street J
' Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 L
Dear Mr.~ Nye:
l Thank you for your letter of May 29,'.1998, regarding the existing process for licer.se renewal.
You irdicated particular interest in hearings on license renewal proceedings held before a 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB or Board). I eppreciate your observations, and your perspective will be valuable to the Commission as we L
_ consider potential improvements to the hearing process.-
With respect to your suggestion that the Commission outline in advance the specific purpose for i
a hearing, the Commission has taken particular care to ensure that the review of license
'~
renewal applications is confined to those matters relevant to the extended period of operation l.
' requested by the applicant. The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 focus the renewal review on plant systems, structures, and components for which current activities and requirernents may not be sufficient to manage the effects of aging in the period of extended b
operation. 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,469 (May 8,1995).- This review, described in 10 C.F.R.
$$ 54.21(a) and (c), invo!ves structures and components that will require an aging management l
review for the period of extended operation and structures, systems, and components that are
(
- subject to an evaluation of time-limited aging analyses. The matters in controversy that may be raised by the parties and decided by the ASLB in a hea'ing on an application for license
' renewal would be limited to these technical issues. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,431-82.
/
[
The Commission has also amended 10 C.F.R. Part 51 to eliminate unnecessary plant-specific
~ environmental evaluations by licensees applying for license renewal. 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467
[h
'(June 5,1996), amended by 61 Fed. Reg. 66,537 (Dec.18,1996). This rule amendment Implemented the determination, set forth in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Lice %a Renewal of Nuclear Plants," May 1996, that 68 of 92 :
environmental issues relating to license renewal had been adequately addressed on a generic basis and that additional plant-specific assessments were not required : ~ sn applicant for.
license renewal. In addition, the Commission is currently considering an amendment to Part 51
- that would deal with the transportation of high level waste in the vicinity of a waste repository on a generic basis, so thA individual applicants for license renewal would not have to include that
issue in the environmental report prepared to support the application. The reope of environmental issues that could be litigated in any hearing that might be held would be similarly
~ confined to those pertinent to the period of extended operation Lnd not otherwise resolved by rule.
\\
AQ n
.9907270059 990716 v
PDR-Com8 setCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
- n.w.
__.___J
O e
Mr. Erle Nye Regarding a licensin0 oard's authority to consider issues on its own motion, under 10 C.F.R.
b
@ 2.760(a), a board may examine and decide a matter not put into controversy by the parties only where the board determines that a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists. As you know, if a board decides to raise matters on its own initiative, a copy of its ruling, setting forth in general terms its reasons, must be transmitted to the Commission and General Counsel. Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLl-81-24,14 NRC 614 (1981). The Commission intends to scrutinize closely any issues raised sua sponte by boards in license renewal proceedings.
In regard to your views on the use of a " hybrid" hearing, (as currently used in materials licensing proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L), the Commission believes that changes to rules or statutes would be required before the Commission could apply such procedures to license renewal proceedings. The Commission is currently considering enhancements to the current process that do not involve rule changes. However, the Commission would welcome further comment on the appropriateness of more informal procedures, and it would also welcome proposals for statutory or rule text that would enable the Commission to make greater use of informal procedures.
Concerning the threshold for admitting contentions for litigation, the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. @@ 2.714(b)(2)(i) and (iii) currently require that a person requesting a hearing or petitioning for leave to intervene in a proceeding explain the bases for any proposed contention and show a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. In addition,10 C.F.R. 2.714(d)(2)(ii) requires a board to refuse to admit a contention if the contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief. As described above, Part 54 identifies the scope of issues that may be considered in a license renewal proceeding within well-defined bounds. On this basis, the Commission believes that its current Rules of Practice in combination with Part 54, if properly applied, should provide sufficient control over the admission of contentions in a license renewal proceeding.
Please note that, with respect to proceedings in general, the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. @ 2.718 provide licensing boards all powers necessary to regulate the course of proceedings, including the authority to set schedules, resolve discovery disputes, and take other action appropriate to avoid delay. For example, many provisions in Part 2 establish schedules for various filings, which can be varied "as otherwise ordered by the presiding officer." Boards have authority under these options and 10 C.F.R. @ 2.718 to shorten the filing and response times set forth in the regulations to the extent practical in a specific proceeding.
In addition, where such latitude is not explicitly afforded, as well as in instances in which sequential (rather than simultaneous) filings are provided for, boards may explore with the parties all reasonable approaches to reduce response times and to provide for simultaneous fi!ing of documents. Although current regulations do not specifically address service by electronic means, licensing boards, as they have in the past, may establish procedures for electronic filing. Boards may also establish other expedited forms of service of documents in a l
particular proceeding. Licensing boards may also use new technologies to expedite l
I proceedings as those technologies become available. These and other similar measures, l
taken cumulatively, have the potential for significantly expediting proceedings.
L
Mr. Erle Nye Finally, the Commission fully agrees that the process should be managed to avoid unnecessary delays, while allowing ample opportunity for all parties to raise issues with merit, and to obtain a full and fair hearing on those issues. To ensure this end is accomplished, the Commission intends to take an active role in license renewal proceedings, and give close oversight to them.
l The Commission is considering issuing an updated policy statement on the conduct of
{
adjudication which would address many of the subjects discussed in your letter, as well as other
{
potentialimprovements to the current process. I appreciate your comments and you may rest
)
assured that the Commission will continue to seek to improve the hearing process, particularly
{
with respect to license renewal.
Sincerely, p :&Lw Shirley Ann Jackson i
1 l
l