ML22230A203
| ML22230A203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780403 | |
| Download: ML22230A203 (1) | |
Text
ORIGi f{f'l TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF~
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING BY R. HANFLING (DOE)
ON PROPOSED LICENSING LEGISLATIO~
Place - Washington, D. C.
Cate - Monday, 3 April 1978 Pages 1-39 Telephone:
(202 ) 347 -3700 A.CE
- FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offici.ai. Reponers
<iJ.4 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission he1d on April 3, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. t-1., ~/ashington, D. C. The meeting was open to. public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may conta.iri inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9. l 03, it is not part of the formal or i nforma 1
( record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinati ans or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Cammi ssion in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg.~iment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
(.
(
Ii I
I I
I
, 1 CR 6970 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRAIG:kim NR 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- e. 4 5
PUBLIC MEETING 6
7 BRIEFING BY R. HANFLING (DOE) 8 ON 9
PROBOSED LICENSING .LEGISLATION 10 11 12 13 Room 1130 14 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
15 Monday, 3 April 1978 16 17 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m.
18 BEFORE:
19 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 20 ~ETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 21 RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 22 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 23 PRESENT:
24 SAMUEL CHILK, Secretary l'Vlon!c~. Reporting Company 25 H. SHAPAR, Executive Legal Director
la CR 6970 CRAIG: fr J. KELLEY, Acting Legal Counsel NR 2 L. GOSSICK 3 R. HANFLING 4 S. PEARCE 5 ALSO PRESENT:
6 E. CASE 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
2 CR6938 PROCEEDINGS
- 7 craig COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Mr. Hanf ling*:*
2 cm wl MR. HANFLING: Commissioners, thank you f0r the 3
opportunity to chat with you awhile this afternoon.
4 I am going to talk a little bit about the nuclear 5
side of the Licensing Act and then answer questions or comments 6
you might have about that.
7 But I would like to take this opportunity to relate 8
just a few of the areas that the Administration, and the 9
Department of Energy, is: focusing on in the light water 10 11 reactor field.
One, of course, is this Nuclear Siting and Licensing 12 Act that was sent up to Congress a few weeks ago and the 13 first hearings will be held tomorrow before Congressman Udall's 14 15 Committee.
16 Two days before we sent the bill up, we also released an internal D~partment of Energy sutdy on the waste 17 18 management program.
19 With a review to some definition and resolution of the policy and planning programs to be another very high 20 priority program in the Administration.
21 On<.- the same day the report was announced, the 22 President also established an interagency task force to work 23 24 with the Department of Energy to try to develop a series of Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 recommendations for the President to the end of the year to
3 cmw2 estafulish an Administration policy and implementing programs of wastec.management.
2 We view that also as a very high priority item 3
for us to accomplish in this calendar year.
4 The third areas that we are working on is to 5
implement the reactor waste storage program.
6 That was in last October.
7 We would hope to get away from reactor stonage 8
facility on line as early as possible, sometime in the early 9
1980s, to try to have within the next several months a 10 definition of the one-time charge that the. government.,..-would 11 ask to assume the responsibility for commercial spent fuel.
12 In addition, the Administration within the next few 13 weeks should be sending up to Congress a bill to allow the 14 Department of Energy to work with the states in the handling 15 16 of old millltailings.
We would hope that that bill would also be up within 17 the:.mext couple of weeks.
18 19 To talk just very br~efly on the Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act, we see this bill accomplishing several 20 things.
21 Overall, it's our perception and perception of many 22 others that light water reactors are not today a realistic, 23 24 viable option for utilities to choose for future baseload Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 . generation.
4 cmw3 Part of these problems stem from the siting and 2 ,_____
'licensing ,
processes but clearly the problems transcend out.
3 A lot of the problems have to do with financing, 4
for changes in load growth and basic uncertainties, -and ,.. :-
5 extensions in construction times.
We do believe, however, that by putting into 6
statute, should the Congress choose to pass the bill, and 7
strengthening /some of the authorities that already exist with 8
NRC, we can reduce the time from when a utility says I need 9
power until the utility actually has.that power in its 10 11 capability from the current time of about 10 to 12 years to 12 a time of like siK or seven years.
'13 That is done primarily by encouraging early site 14 selection and site banking, and the use of standardized plants.
15 Both of these particular concepts are things that 16 could be done now, but to a great extent and for many reasons 17 are not being done now.
18 We hope that the bill and some of the other features 19 of the bill that are new would help~to encourage that.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did I hear-_, you correctly 21 to say that it was not a viable option now?
22 MR. HANFLING: That's right.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does that mean?
24 MR. HANFLING: That most utilities do not now Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 cqnsider the purchase of a nuclear plant today to be a reasonab e
5 cmw4 and prudent choice by their board of directors.
2 Several of the chief executive officers of major 3
utilities who in the past have made substantial purchases of 4
nuclear equipment, have indicated to us that given the 5
uncertainties surrounding the nuclear process today, plus some 6
of the uncertainties in the waste management area, that they would not consider purchasing a nuclear plant today or in the 7
near future.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but they are not 9
10 buying many plants of any kind, are they? They are not buying 11 any coal plants either, are they?
12 MR. HANFLING: There is a very significant slowdown 13 in purchasing of facilities, except in some areas in the 14 purchasing of gas turbines.
15 There are some utilities that have indicated a 16 significant ordering interest in gas turbines.
17 What we are trying to look at is not so much was is 18 today or what might be for the next six months or a year, but 19 what the long-term outlook would be through the 1980s and 1990s.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINKSY: So are you saying that 21 given things as they are now, if the :,utilities ~~_lt they had 22 to provide for more power than they have now, they would not be 23 bying nuclear plants, they would be buying coal plants?
24 MR. HANFLING: Well, that is what many of the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 utilities are telling us now.
6 cmw5 And what we are trying to encourage them to do, and in fact it's more than encourage, if the coal conversion bill 2
passes as it came out of the House-Senate Conference, which is 3
one part of the National Energy Act, that bill would make it 4
extremely difficult for a utility to add any new oil and gas 5
generation of any kind except for peaking.
6 And it intended to put a great deal* of pressure on 7
the utilities to plan into the future to build new capacity 8
for three reasons.
9 One is for load growth.
10 11 Two is to replace existing oil and gas capacity.
12 And three is as part of the first two would be to help to hold down consumer cost.
13 14 A::1significant number of utilities are very concerned 15 that the long-term availability and price of residual fuel oil.
16 We will try to work with.those utilities not only 17 to provide coal and nuclear as options today and in the future, but also to .. help provide synthetic fuels capability, both as 18 19 liquids and.gases for those kinds of generating facilities.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But given.things as- they 21 are now, you don't see them buying any more nuclear plants?
22 MR. HANFLING: Well, again, that is what they have indicated to us.
23 24 When I say no more, you might see a few a year as Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 there have been over the past couple of years even with these
cmw6 cancellations, there are still people ordering plants.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:: But a very small fraction 2
MR. HANFLING: Very small amount.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Of new orders?
4 MR. HANFLING: Yes, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And that is what you believ ?
6 MR. HANFLING: Yes, Commissioner.
7 To try to.provide this option and to make i t an 8
option that would be more favorably looked at in balance with 9
coal or other nonoil and gas facilities, as I said, we would 10 hope that the planning of the facilities, both on a siting basi 11 and on a technology:;or standardization basis could be done 12
- 13 14 15 off the critical path and allow these sites to be prelicensedss(i and banked and encourage~ to the greatest extent possible the use of standardized plants such as that when a utility and a state feel that a nuclear plant is the proper way to go, 16 they make that cho_ice, then they could get that plant on line 17 from that time within six to seven years.
18 A few other features.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If everything happened 20 right, the legislation were passed and it is, what then would 21 have to happen to get down to that six or seven-y~ar projection 22 of yours?
23 MR. HANFLING: Okay. The -- a utility or a series, 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
letJ;s just take one, would select si tes.:_in conjunction with 25
7 cmw7 their state, which every part of the state would be involved COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What's the fastest period 2
of time that you would .see that taking place on a meaningful 3
basis across the country?
4 MR. HANFLING: Well, I don;t know across the 5
country.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: For a large enough area --
7 MR. HANFLING: From two to four years.
8 There are some states that have these processes 9
that are working to a reasonable degree in the*.i State of 10 Maryland.
11 In New York, siting laws have significant problems.
12
- 13 14 15 And I hear that they are trying to amend that.
But we could see that a two- to four-year process would allow banking of significant sites.
We have worked with the_ Governors\ Conference and.-
16 17 l_with -~-~~=-~al__ ~!--=~-~-~~':7:~r~~-~~-~~-rt closely in developing the concept.
18 And they tend to agree that in some of the processes 19 they are setting up that two to four years is a reasonable 20 e 7 time.
21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
6938 .08. I 8 ej COMMISSIONER BRADFORD-: So, if the legislation were 2 passed, say, during 1978, we would hope to have a reasonable 3 sixe banking program in place by 1981, say.
4 MR. HANFLING: J82, '83, something like that.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: At the same time, you would 6 hope to have various vendors coming in and getting standard 7 designs approved?
8 MR. HANFLING: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So that sometime in the 10 1982-83 time range, there would be a combination of standard 11 designs and group sitings?
12 MR. HANFLING: That is exactly in the charts we have 13 used, looking at like a 1982-83 time for those 2 things to 14 come together.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: There is going to have to 16 be some sort of indication of interest from utility executives 17 in more nuclear facilities. Where does the boost -- I gather 18 from what you said a minute ago, you don't sse that happening.
19 MR. HANFLING: Well, what I see happBning, again, 20 this is from the conve.rsations with the utility people, if 21 they f.eel that the administration wi 11 support the light 22 water reactor option, and if they believe that this bill or 23 even from their point of view a strengthened version of this 24 bLll has reasonable chance of being passed, if we will do 25 something to resolve the away from reactor storage problem I
I L _____ j
6938.08.2 9 ej and come up with a finite. definition of economics for spent 2 fuel, if they see and can credibly go to their rate 3 commissions and others_ in the states and say that we have a 4 g-0od time table policy for resolving the waste management 5 questions, tha.t they would .evince considerable interest in 6 going back to the nuclear option as something that they would 7 purchase.
8 COMM! SS !ONER BRADFORD.z So for the kind of demand 9 that would encourage a vendor to come to us with a standard I then some of the things that 10 design to begin to accumulate I
I JI you .just listed would have to take place first?
I.
ie I
12 13 MR. HANFLING: Take place first, or have a reasonable fseling that it is going to take place. I don't think we have I
14 to.institute all the programs. That is why we are trying very I
I 15 hard to mset the dates we have recently set, having the option I
I 16 of a credible program on waste disposal before the President 17 by the end of the year and do something within the next couple I
I 18 of months to come out with some firm numbers on away from I
19 reactor s.torage.
20 So, we see these things happening in calendar year 21 1978. We have aJso pointsd out that if the process worked as 22 we have Just been discussing, so by 1 82, '83, one could go to 23 this new system, if you made a purchase commitment in that 24 year, let's say, 1983, you could have that plant on line by 25 the year 1990. 1990 is about the time one could expect to
6938.08.3 10 ej have a plant on line on the average if you made a commitment 2 today under the current system. As far as the timing goes, 3 that is within the realm of the time frame.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That, then, I guess, gets 5 into another question I had. That 6 to 7 year figure assumes 6 you can do that in the first generation of standard designs.
7 That is, you are not counting on one generation"s worth of 8 experience in building that type of plant as being part of the 9 savings that gets you down to a 6 to 7 year construction time?
JO MR. HANFLING: I think it would depend on which JI standard design or what system they were using. If this was 12 a first new kind of standard, or whatever design, maybe that 13 first plant would take longer. It may not take the 6 or 7 14 years. I just don"t know. We have had some conversations 15 with the SNUPPS people who believe that their plants could 16 be built in 5 years.
17 They fsel fairly confident that 60 months, once they 18 get that system going,they can build those plants.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought AIF was saying 20 that even if there were no licensing process, it would .take 21 about 8 years.
22 MR. HANFLING: The AIF, let"s say the first 50 pages 23 or so of the report, the report makes that basic statement.
24 In the last 3 or 4 pages of the report,there is a statement 25 that says if there was a basic commitment to buy reactors
6938.08.4 11 ej s.uch that utili-ty vendors would prepurchase forgings, which 2 are basically the critical path i terns, such as the forgings 3 for the -- you could get that time period down to the 6 or 7 4 years that we are .talking about.
5 So,there is a materials limitation, that if things 6 are done in series, which would be limited by the vessel, 7 by the forgings, by the purchasing of that, if one did go to 8 a standardized plant such that they could prepurchase forgings 9 you could get that time period down 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, the 6 .to 7 really l I assumes a kind of mass production of plants.
12 MR. HANFLING: Well, I wouldn't quite characterize 13 it as mass production with you certainly --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At least a sufficient volume and 15 confidence in the industry so that people like the vendors 16 of vessels and the vendors of steam generators would feel 17 confident in going ahead and preordering the heavy forgings 18 that are the long lead time items so that you could take about 19 a year instead of 4 years from order of a pressure vessel, 20 have it reasonable to have it on si~e in 3 or even a shade 21 less.
22 Otherwise, you end up pretty well hung at about an 23 8 year ceiling from ordering of the nuclear system supply, 24 about 4 years to get the vessel on site, and about 4 years .to 25 get the fuel load from that point.
6938.08.5 12 ej COMMISSIONER-BRADFORD: Was the industry getting 2 anywhere near that point in '72, '3 and '4, when we didn't 3 seem to be getting that many applications?
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think so. In terms of 5 construction time.
6 COMMISS !ONER BRADFORD: In terms of that kind of 7 confidence, to have people preordering.
8 MR. CASE: Yes, they were preordering.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think so. The vessel shops 10 . were so badly pressed that people were going abroad to Dutch 11 yards and Japanese yards and the vessel manufacturers were 12 hustling around ordering 13 MR. LEVINE: People were getting in line with I4 orders.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: People would order a vessel 16 before they would even place the NSSS order just to get on 17 the vessel manufacturer's books and so on.
18 MR. HANFLING: Speaking again with some of the NSSS 19 people, they could visualize us going back to the way it was, 20 whether it was 5 or 8 years ago.
21 The question then comes what*-- at that time, it was 22 pressure vessels.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What occurred to me was that 24 at the point in time when this preordering was going on, the 25 licensing times in fact were getting longer rather than
I ~
I I
I I I I
I 16938. 08 .6 13 I ej shorter. . So there_ must have b_een something else that was ie I
2 causing them to stretch out even though people were resorting I 3 to the kind of preordering you hope to bring back into 4 existence.
5 MR. HANFLING: Well, again, there were a lot of 6 factors that contributed to the extensions, the larger plants, 7 the fact that a lot of the plants.wera custom designed.
8 Each one, the final designs were not available at the CP.
9 There were some labor problems. There were changes in design 10 during the production. We have no -- have none and had none, II illusions that this bill in and of itself if passed would 12 solve all the problems.
13 It is one part of the process that tries to look at 14 reducing undertainties, in reducing the unpredictability of 15 the process. One aspect of the bill which is not now in the 16 current authorities of the NRC would be a difference which we 17 believe woul dhave a significant impact on the use of 18 s~andardized plants and site banking, so-called judicial use 19 of res judicata, where the bill would allow the NRC the 20 opportunity to limit the opportunity .to raise issues at 21 subsequent issues after that particular issue could have 22 bEen raised.at an earlier hearing.
23 Of coures, the commission could a 11 ow -- could al low 24 anything to be rais.ed at any time as .they saw fit.. But in this 25 particular case the bill, if passed as drafted, could limit
6938.08.7 14 ej issues from being raised unless there was substantial new 2 information on an old issue or it was a new issue.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: How much time are you 4 how much of a time saving are you ascribing to that?
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- 23 24 25
6938.09.1 15 bw MR. HANFLJNG: I donJt think we can ascribe a 2 particular time saving just to that, as much as increases 3 basic predictability, certainty of the whole process.
4 Obviously, if there was some new kind of infor-5 mation at a particular site then that would be reopened.
6 But to many of the people who again we have 7 talked, they felt that, you know, unlass they had some 8 reasonable assurance that if they banked the site or if they 9 went thr.ough the difficulty and trouble, as Commissioner 10 Gilinisky asked, why would they come in and want to get a 11 standardized plan.t, unless .they felt that once they got 12 this, that there was some reasonable assurance that they could 13 use the site and use that plant, they wouldnJt do it.
14 So we feel that that kind of a plant criteria 15 may be an intrinsic necessity for just getting the process 16 going.
17 We asked the question, since some of these things 18 could be done now under existing NRC authorities, why aren't 19 people doing it? We believe one of the reasons they are not 20 doing it is that there is a lack of reasonable assurance that, 21 once they have done it, that these issues will not be raised 22 again and again and again.
23 I think one area which maybe is the clearest from 24 the bill, it doesn't really fall under that particular 25 principle, where we try to increase certainty is in the need
6938.09.2 16 bw for power question. Need for power question today is raised 2 by both by states and by the NRC. And in some instances need 3 for power is raised again at the operating license state.
4 The bill suggests that the state make the 5 definitive determination of whether power from that 6 facility on that site at that time is, in fact, nEeded, in 7 which, once, the state has made that determination that 8 s e tt l es i t
- 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: When is the state going to 10 make that determination?
1I MR. HANFLING: The bill, as drafted, has a 12 requirement that before the NRC could issue a construction 13 permit or a combined construction-permit operating license, 14 the state prior to that time would have to make equivalent of 15 some sort of a certification that that plant was, in fact, 16 nEeded at that time +/-rame. So it is before the NRC could 17 issue a construction permit. That would be the definitive 18 determination of the need for power of the plant.
19 On the philosophical level what we will try to do 20 is separate the thrse pieces, the need for power, 21 environmental review and health and safty. Health and 22 safety would remain with the NRC totally., We would try 23 to get need for power to come out of the NRC and be with 24 the states. Environmental Lssues, we would hope would be 25 done once by either the NRC or the state, if the state could
6938.09.3 17 bw 3
2 4
get a program approved by thge NRC to do either one piece or several pieces or the whole environmental por.tions, trying again .to logically arrange who does each par.t of this analysis and see that it is done once and dqne properly.
5 COMM I SS !ONER BRADFORD: Let's ee, the state, if 6 everything went as ssemed ideal to you, the state would 7 do its NEPA-related work during the approval of the yearly 8 process. Would there be any further, there wouldn't, I guess, 9 NEPA-related work before the construction permit or combined 10 construction-operating license were issued.
.I I MR. HANFLINMG: No, there would be. There would 12 be in, again, that idealized case. During the presite 13 selection and site licensing application the state or NRC, 14 let/s say the state in this case, would do as much of the 15 environmental work, as it could possibly do at that point.
16 Fit the need to the site and everything else 17 that was done. They would also do a generic need for the 18 facility evaluation *. Obviously, they couldn't say they 19 nseded it on a specific day, but just generally in that state 20 and in that region, there would be expected to be five or ten 21 plants a.t some time.
22 They pass through all of this. They could get 23 the site permit to build X number of plants_ on that site.
24 Some years later, before the CP, hopefully, the 25 CP-OL would be issued, there would be an environmental update.
6938.09.4 18 bw This is as done now. In that update anything 2 that either couldn't have been answered at that earlier 3 site approval, or if there's been anything changed in those 4 intervening years, it would be updated by the state at that 5 time.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But you would have that 7 threshold test, to me there would be no further baseline 8 environmental work necessary at the point at which you unbank 9 the site, unless there were new information or--
10 MR. HANFLING: Or something new.
l I Again, that res adjudicata principle holds as the 12 bill is written only for NRC-related hearings. A state l.3 at any .time for any reason ~ould reopen anything that they 14 saw fit to open, or the state could choose not to take that 15 site out of the bank. That choice of which site and whether 16 to use that site, land-usemanagement, is the responsibility 17 of the state and there i~ no preemption of .state planning 18 rights. So they are not limited by this ability to just call 19 on new issues or new information.
20 They may at some point choose, no, we don't want 21 to go with .this item at this point and go to someplace else.
22 Part of the philosophy again, which is not 23 incorporated into this bill, but will be in another bill that 24 the Department of Energy hopes to submit later this month is 25 .. a state energy management planning bill, which is built to
6938.09.5 19 bw 2
3 4
encourage states and regions ~o do comprehensive state planning, both the supply and demand aspects, to try to come up with this broad energy facility site, not just nuclear site, energy site, whether it is transmission lines 5 or pipelines or anything else. This would fit into that 6 overall planning mode. We are just trying to encourage the 7 land-use planning and thinking as far ahead as you can.
8 I can re ca 11 the four E' s
- I t i s re a 11 y 9 enginEering, environment, economics and employment which 10 really the states would have to start to make .those kinds of ll economic and enviironment and energy analyses now and hope-12 fully make their citizens aware of ~he risks and benefits of 13 doing one thing or another and trying to do that as early as 14 possible.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It is a question I know 16 tht's come up before~ but I guess having failed to understand 17 the answer each time I have heard it before, let me try it 18 on you once more. In terms of the as early as possible goal, I9 why isn't it better to have that NEPA update and the 20 _definitive need for power determination made_ before the 21 LWA issues ~nstead of before the construction permit issues?
22 MR. HANFLING: As the bill is .drafted, within 30 23 days after the utility files its application for -- a 24 preapproved site, if the state or the NRC does not stop the 25 . utility, the utility can begin what would be the equivalent of
6938.09.6 20 bw a limited work authorization. So the bill sets up the 2 .mechanism whereby the equivalent of a LWA would, in fact, 3 take place automatically unless the NRC o.r state says, *"No, 4 you can't go.~ That is part of that saving, that you 5 don't have to wait for the LWA, because you have basically 6 done all the work that needed to be done for an LWA in that 7 early site selection process. So the LWA in that case is not 8 necessarily under the construct of the bill.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it does lay open the 10 possibility of, say, $50 to $100 million worth of construction II completed before the need for power and the NEPA update have 12 taken place.
13 MR. HANFLING: That is possible, yes.
14 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY: Before the need for power?
15 MR. HANFLING: Before the definitive need for power.
16 Site-specific need for power. Again, the state, what we have 17 in the bi 11 is .that there is a six-month prior notice by the 18 _ utility and a publishing by the utility of their request 19 for the need for power six months prior to them filing the 20 application. So the state 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The state could then come 22 in and say 23 MR. HANFLING: Just come in and say, No, not on 24 this site or just for any reason, there is no thre~hold or 25 criteria of why.a state would say no, you can't do this, it
j 6938.09.7 21 bw would just say no.
2 COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD: Would that take _the form 3 of a letter to the NRC saying we hereby object to the 4 issuance of a --- we don-"t actually issue an LWA, do we?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We would issue an order saying, 6 don-"t take it up.
7 MR. SHAPAR: I think I would want to cover this by 8 specific rules too.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or we might choose on given 10 sites to allow site cleang, some road work, but a clear l I limit on construction with a view to not allowing all that
- 12 13 14 expense in a fixed investment.
MR. HANFLING: As I recall, I think it is in the bill or maybe in the section-by-section analysis, that the 15 utility would lay out those things thta it would intend to 16 work on.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We do have that kind of 18 fine-tune and control, it is not either you have LWA --
19 MR. HANFLING: No, it is not all or nothing.
20 The utility would lay out a menu or list of what 21 they would in.tend to do on the sLte. And the state or the 22 Commission could just go down that list and say, *"We will
- 23 24 25 allow you to do one through, then stop" -- or whatever it is.
in the bill?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You don-"t see the curren.t draf_t You don-"t see any limitation on the Cornmission~s
6938.09.8 22 bw 2
3 rulemaking ability in the area, do you?
MR. SHAPAR: One limitation, since this work is being done before the construction permit is issued or the 4 combined CP-OL is issued, they certainly couldn't build the 5 whole plant or substantial portion of the plant before CP was 6 issued. LWAs have ~een allowed up to now to cover work up 7 to ground level. I think when you start allowing 8 substantial --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The Chairman's question is, 10 I think, there is nothing in this bill which would make it 11 impossible for us to have similar rules?
12 MR. SHAPAR: I think clearly we would have that 13 authority.
14 MR. HANFLING: to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there 15 is nothing in the bill that would limit the NRC from making 16 rules or regulations.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Which would allow precisely that 18 sort of fine-tuning.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did we interrupt your 20 presentation or are you waiting for questions?
21 MR. HANFLING: No, I am waiting for questions.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, what do 23 you ~hink the effect will be on the length of time involved 24 in the process in general of shifting environmental 25 responsibilities to the states?
6938.09.9 23 bw 2
3 MR. HANFLING: I think depending again -0n the states and how the program would be administered by the NRC, in setting up the rules and regulations for accrediting 4 states, we think maybe the first time out of the gate the 5 process may take a little bit longer.
6 We think on the subsequent rules to be used by 7 the state, the whole process, uncertainty of the resolution 8 of the process, which I think is probably more important in 9 this case than the process itself, would be improved.
10 A lot of that environmental work, if they go to 11 presite selection, is off the critical path. So it is not e- 'i 12 13 14 as much the timing of this, whether it might take a year or year and a half or two years, as much as having gone through it once, it is done.
15 So you could in the case where. a state could 16 be accredited for the full environmental review, have that 17 done once by the state, seeing both state requirements and, 18 simultaneously, federal laws.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You are assuming 20 applicants will go along this new streamlined path, have 21 you thought about what fraction of appli~ations would be 22 standard plants go on preapproved sites?
- 23 24 25
24 jeri 1 Mr. Hanfling. We have thought about it. I can't er 6938 ck 10 2 really give you any hard numbers or guesstimates. Our guessti-3 mate is as bad as anybody else's.
4 But I think I personally would see a majority, vast 5 majority, whatever that is, whether it is 75- or 80 percent or 6 what, going for some sort of standardized plant. Whether you 7 will get that high a number of pre-approved sites, I am not 8 as certain. The pre-approved sites -- some of the states may 9 find it difficult, or if a state is only going to have one plant 10 or whatever, they might not choosecto go that approach.
11 Standardized plants, I would say greater than 75-,
12 80 percent is possible, again~depending on how the program is 13 laid out on the pre-approved sites.
14 On the current systems, I would say at least half, 15 maybe more depending on how the process works. Let me throw out 16 one number. Again, this is not a Department of En~rgy predic-17 tion or goal or estimate or objective. But I believe the Secre-18 tary during the press conference and in some testimony earlier 19 had talked about the possibility of having roughly 380 light wat r 20 reactors on line by the year 2000. I stress that it is not an 21 objective of DOE, it was just taking an estimate of balancing 22 the new generation sort of 50/50 between coal and nuclear.
23 If one were to reach that number by the 1990s, one 24 woulq have to start to get plants on line, I think, in the early Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 part of the 1990s,at the rate of one a month, going up to 1-1/2
25 jeri2 a month and then up to two a month by the end of the 1990 period
,:. I think to start to get anywhere at a yea:i:::1¥:S:" rate 3 of 12 to 24 plants would require a great deal of standardization 4 and prepurchasing and the use of site banks or multiple siting.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I remember in '7 2, the :,,:'!_d-*
6 mid-70s, we were planning for that.
7 MR. HANFLING: I remember that the nuclear light wate a reactor was always the best industry that was ten years away.
9 It is still 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. From mid-72 to mid~73 11 I think we got something like two a month.
12 MR. CASE: Close to two a month.
13 CHAIIDlAN HENDRIE: In fact there were some periods 14 I can recall ve~y~well.
15 MR. CASE: We wouldn't let them in the door.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: . When I was trying to convince vc 17 utilities to get together and decide who ~ot tb-:file the appli-18 cation every month when we were getting better than one a week
-19 and we couldn't digest the acceptance reviews.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Prob.ably what happened is 21 there ~ust was a great misunderstanding if they filed on 22 Monday --
23 (Laughter.)
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Then there wouilid be dry periods Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 where no one would show up and we would stand wistfully at the
26 jeri 3 door.
2 CHAIRMAN GILINSKY: What was the thinking behind 3 treating the environmental hearings, with safety hearings?
4 MR. HANFLING: Just to clarify it, we have in,: the 5 mill the opportunity for the NRC to use a so-called hybrid type 6 of hearing for non-health and safety issues which would be the 7 use of legislative types of hearings, and then for contested 8 issues, fact or law, to:sgb.t.to the adjudicatory hearing. The 9 concept there was that there were many issues, we believe, that 10 could be adequately handled by a legislative-typ~ hearing bee 11 cause much of the environmental reviews of non-nuclear NEPA/EIS 12 hearings are done on a legislative format.
13 Again, if I could just talk about the logic behind 14 it for a minute, the NRC and some of the other regulatory groups 15 who by other authorities use adjudicatory hearings, there ha-s 16 sort of been a vertical type of mode, just put all of their 17 hearings in that same adjudicatory -- if you look at some of 18 the crosscuts, horizontally, on environmental issues, most of 19 these hearings are done in a legislative format.
20 CHAIRMAN GILINSKY: A rulemaking?
21 MR. HANFLING: No, just legislative types of hearings 22 without a trial format and cross examination.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Hearings on environmental 24 impacts.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. HANFLING: So in looking at that we just felt
27 jeri 4 that looking, based on that issue, not the health and safety,
.:. but the NEPA/Environmental Impact Statements type of issues,
- they could b~ as they are in many other areas, adequately 3
4 addressed by legislative types of review.
5 But again, going back through the history of using 6 adjudicatory hearings, we felt that a reasonable lower level 7 standard would be the so-called hybrid hearing.
8 Again, there is nothing in the bill --
9 COl\'.IMISSIONER GILINSiq: How do you distinguish these from 10 safety issues? You think this would not be appropriate in the 11 case of safety issues, bei~g more serious?
12 MR. HANFLING: Being more traditionally done by 13 adjudicatory hearings, not a question of more serious or less 14 serious. Health and safety issues, nuclear plants have always 15 been done by adjudicatory procedures. Environmental issues, 16 non-health and safety types of environmental things, except wher 17 regulatory requirements call for agjudicatory hearings, are 18 generally done by legislative types of formats.
19 MR. KELLEY: Well, not:hearing at all. NEPA doesn't 20 require a hearing. A lot of agencies don't have hearings.
21 MR. HANFLING: So we felt as this opportunity for 22 flexibility by the Commission for this type of a standard.
23 MR. KELLEY: Could I ask you to comment on this 24 provision under standardized facilities design, the subsection Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 which says, in effect, within six months after enactment we are
28 jeri 5 supposed to loo~ at the applications in the house and figure out 2 what would qualify under this concept, and we probably should 3 list, and there after all -- which apply to standardized * ,*
4 facility designs shall apply to all such facilities.
5 What exactly is intended by that and what would be 6 the consequences of making the list, as it were?
7 MR. HANFLING: The intent let me go back.
8 One of the questions we asked, what parts of the bill 9 both in philosophy and detail, should apply to things that are 10 already in the pipeline? We felt that if~there were such 11 standardized plants already in existence, we didn't want to 12 preclude the possibility that the NRC had already approved the 13 use of some systems or some plants that weren't up to standard 14 based on what the NRC would decide the standards were.
15 This went through the duplication, all the series, 16 the newspapers, the so-called Duke 6-pack, whatever those are-'..
17 We didn't want to in the bill start to define what was standard.
18 We felt that the NRC should do the definitional aspect of what 19 is replication, a standard plan, was this a standard plan, so on 20 That was the philosophy of having the NRC go through it and 21 see what are the things in their pipeline that they would consi-22 der to be standard design, standard plants.
23 MR. KELLEY: . Yes, but do we have to go through the 24 procedures described by this bill in order to certify a partic-Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ular design, you know, a Westinghouse 9500 reactor, whatever it
29 jeri 6 may be?
2 But suppose that that'ssbeen through a design review 3 and we have a Staff determination that this is a good standard 4 design, this bill re9uires a hearing, right? And various other 5 procedures in order to get from point A to point B where you 6 have got a standard design. How are we going to do that in six 7 months?
8 MR. HANFLING: At the risk of counsel kicking me in 9 the leg and telling me that I am wrong, or both, this would be a 10 chance to, I don't know if l~grandfa ther" is the right word, 11 but basically establish that a lot of those procedures had 12 already in fact been done without having to go through the 13 whole system again.
14 MR. KELLEY: I don't think that hap **happened in 15 point of fact.
16 MR. HANFLING: Suzanne.
17 MS. PEARCE: I think what is intended is that within 18 six months the Commission will have made some basic cut as to 19 which designs would be appropriate to qualify standardized 20 designs. It says all provisions of the act which apply to 21 those designs shall ~pply to such facilities. It is at that 22 point that you would, you know, if people wanted to go through 23 the full approval mechanism, having a mandatory hearing on the 24 standard design, then that would happen. BUt I~think that Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 basically the six-month time is to look at what is around now
30 jeri 7 and sort of just say, okay, this design, you know, is one that 2 you would want to go through the standardized design procedure.
3 And I think that depending on the procedures that the Cornmis-4 sion works out, you could probably do it concurrently with, 5 if it is something for a CPS already been issued or it is coming 6 along toward an OL, you might be able to comply with the 7 proceedings.
8 I think that is it, not to waste the time you have 9 put in on things on the pipeline.
10 COMMISSION GILINSKY: It reminds me of the bourgeois 11 of the French play who discovers he's been speaking prose.:,all 12 his life.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So what would then happen 14 would be the Commission weuld issue a notice of some sort with 15 regard to this particular application, that this application was 16 not in consider:ation .. to be a standard design as well, wher-e11pon 17 what has been a simple CP or OL proceeding would be open to 18 nationwide intervention?
19 MS. PEARCE: Well, I think that that also is going 20 to depend on the Applicant. It may very well be the case that 21 they don't want to do that.
22 If it is the fourth time that they have done the 23 plant, and they have had to come through and go through the 24 whole process everytime, it may be that there will be some Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 incentive for them to try and consolidate the two proceedings.
31 jeri 8 OHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let Is,. see. Do I read that section, Suzanne, to say that it offers the opportunity to short 3 circult the rulemaking process on a design, or do I read it to 4 say the Commission ought to look around at the plants in the 5 pipeline and existing, and to designate which of those it thinks 6 are candidates for such procedures?
7 MS. PEARCE: I think in a sense both. Certainly the 8 latter. But it offers sort of an alternative to rulemaking 9 for approving the standardized designs to more typically license 10 kind of proceedings rather than solely permitting approval of 11 standardized designs --
12 MR. HANFLING: The intent, I think, was to offer 13 some flexibility. It is not forcing the Applicant to take, 14 as Commissioner Bradford asked, take this one somewhere in the 15 process and sort of open it up to national intervenors if they 16 didn't want to. But if they were somewhere in the process and 17 they felt that their design was one that they would want to be 18 made standard and you felt this could be, so that when they 19 built the second or third plant, they wouldn't have to go 20 through the process, I think between themselves and the Commis-21 sion. *.:could determine to go that rout:.e, which is how the 22 Chairman indicated in the second group.
23 COMMISSION BRADFORD: I am having a little' tr:;ouble 24 seeing why anybody would want to proceed under that section Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 instead of just saying here is the design we would like to have
32 jeri 9 considered under your standardization powers and format.
2 Even if it were a design that had been approved under 3 the Commission's own standardization program before this 4 statute went~into effect. I guess I can't see why they would 5 want to take whatever ongoing proceedings they had involving 6 that design, and then mix it up with whatever kind of general 7 type proceeding.~3the statute contemplates for aI:*_,standardized 8 approval.
9 You may be right. No harm would be done, with us 10 and with them.
11 MR. HANFLING: Hopefully it is that no harm would 12 be done, it is hoped that some good could come out of it if ther
- 13 14 l5 are some cases, and we just didn't want to preclude that if there were things in the system now, and again, I don't know whether what happens is something that would work in that --
16 CHAKRMMJ. BRADFORD: Let's ask that question, Ed.
17 Are there a lot of candidates in the system now?
18 MR. CASE: I am not sure I understand the section 19 yet. So I dd.n't know how to answer the question. So it is 20 not clear to me if they are put on the list what sort of 21 procedures they have to go through. Can you be automatically 22 qualified regardless of previous procedures, if you are put 23 on this list within six months.? I don't know the answer i::.o 24 that yet. I gather tha answer is no. I gather you can take Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 advantage of whatever procedures you have been through, if you
33 jeri 10 are put on this list, but whatever procedures you have got, 2 in accordance with the new bill, you would have to follow.
3 Is that -- do I understand that right?
4 MS. PEARCE: Yes.
5 MR. KELLEY: I think it could stand some clarificatio 6 because it can be readyby a person who was hostile to this bill 7 and its intent as a sort of instan~ standardization provision 8 whereby anything in the house that had been through the Staff 9 review gets grandfathering.
10 I think if that is the result, it should be spelled 11 out. And if not, it should be spelled out what the intent of 12 the bill is.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That could be done with 14 legislative history, I assume.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We have provision for 16 u-tili ties with standard plants and also we have provisions for 17 early siting reviews, notsquite as extensive as in the bill.
18 But these things are in the works. What do you see as the reall 19 key contribution to the bill?
20 If you had to set a line up, one, two, three, what end 10 21 are the really important features of the bill?
22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
6938. J 1
- l 34
- ju 2
3 MR. HANFLING:
- Let me run down, not any particular order of priority. I think, 1, having some of the provisions and authorities that the NRC currently has endorsed by the 4 Congress legislatively, both to pre-site selection, 5 standardized plants; 2, providing an atmosphere, mechanisms, 6 a combination of things that would encourage people to use 7 those mechanisms. Some of those encouragements in the 8 standardized plan would be waiver of the fee at that time, 9 moving the fee back to some later time. We are lnoking for 10 again some incentive there, too, this combined construction JI permit - operating license at ans stage where they could go and 12 get,the plant. No prior opportunity for raising issues later 13 on, so if they did go to standardized plants, preselected 14 sites, they would have some reasonable degree of assurance 15 that when they actually wanted to use that site and that 16 plant, th~y could in fact do it. They would not have to go 17 through all the issues again. I think that is a key one.
18 Another one is to take the nEed-for-power question, 19 the need~for-facility question, out of the Federal Government, 20 out of the NRC completely, and put it with the states. So 21 there is no longer any vestige or vestigial accusations that 22 the NRC is in any way promoting nuclear power or endorsing or 23 saying *"You need this plant" or something else. We tried 24 thr.oughout the bill to call for an early public participation 25 in the bill by early public notice of whatever the Applicant
6938.-1 I .2 35
- ju 2
3 is going to be doing. We are 9oing this test, five-year period, of Intervenor funding. If we want people to come in early and say what they have to say at ~he earliest possible 4 .time, we want to provide some assistance for getting those 5 issues and those problems raised at the earliest possible 6 time.
7 The other one which the Governors~felt very 8 strongly about, that if the state was capable of doing that 9 environmental part, they should have toe opportunity to do 10 some pa~t of that statement.
1I So in sor.t of summary, it is noL just the over a 11
- 12 time or it is not just - We certainly hope the bill doesn't 13 imply or hope none of our discussions imply that we invented a 14 lot of these things by bringing this bill up. It is really an 15 affirmation of things that have b_een .talked about for many, 16 many years, that many studies have talked about, that the 17 Commission is trying to do now without the bill, giving that 18 sort of support. Too, reducing uncertain.ty, reducing lack of 19 predictability, of the process.
20 Mixed in with all this is consumer cost. The one 21 who pays for a lot of these aspects of unpredictability are 22 the consumer, and to try to hold down basic energy cost 23 without sacrificing health and safety, the environment. We 24 feel these kinds of things should be endorced by the Congress 25 and should be implemented as.best they can by the Commission.
6938 .J I .3 36
- ju 2
3 That is a little more than I, 2, and 3, but the philosophy, I think, of the bill.
Let me throw in one other thing, and I don't mean 4 to harp on it, but sort of a philosophical note again. Today, 5 when a utility, whether it is a coal plant or nuclear plant, 6 or whatever, come out and say they need something, they 7 basically ask the four questions at the same time: How much 8 power? What kind of fX)Wer? Where should it go? And when 9 should I build it?
JO They ask those four related but separable questions 11 all at the same time under a lot of pressure. They generally 12 ask those at the latest possible time to get a plant built.
13 Again, on a philosophical basis1 both this bill and the 14 comprehensive state planning bill would try to se.parate those 15 so they can be answered at .the proper time and as early as we 16 can, "How much power," this kind of generic analysis, "What 17 kind of power,~ again the state should pick out the 18 facilities.
19 This winter made it clear to us the dangers of 20 overconcentrating in parts of the country one type of energy 21 source. What type of power should it be? Anything except oil 22 and gas.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Oil and gas as a last 24 resort.
25 MR. HANFLING: That is a catchy phrase.
6938.Jl.4 37
- ju 2
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
MR. HANFLING:
That is the siting.
I hope so.
The third is 11 Where do you put it?J' Not just nuclear, but basic land-use 4 management. Then, at the last possible time, "When do you 5 actually n.eed i t?-11 6 A lot of those things with the early involvement 7 and public discussion are woven into both this bill and some 8 of the other bills and things.
9 COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD: Unless I missed it, you 10 did not list among the bills Intervenor funding.
11 MR. HANFLING: Yes. I mentioned that test five-12 year program.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I am sorry. What was the 14 logic in deferring the effective date of the Intervenor 15 funding program while making the standardization and early 16 site approval effective right away?
17 MR. HANFLING: The Intenvenor funding, we were 18 concerned that that would be available to plants already in 19 the pipeline and would just_ stop essentially any of the 20 proceedings on those plants. Site banking basically couldn't 21 affect anything that is in the pipeline. That would have to 22 be started anew or they would have to get that license. The 23 standardized plant I we hava just gone over and very clearly 24 see we have to clarify that, it may take a change in the 25 language of the bill to make it clearer and the legislative
6938 * .Jl.5 38
- ju 2
3 history.
COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD: But the intent there is that it could affect plants already in the pipeline, 4 standardization.
5 MR. HANFLING: It could, depending on, again, what 6 the rules and regulations would have to be to get those 7 endorsed as standard plants. It may take -- Some of the 8 things in the pipeline have to do with second, third, and 9 fourth plants at a given site. Again, we just did not want 10 to preclude the fact that if you were going to build your 11 plants on one site, and if the utility wanted to, they could 12 turn that first plant hearing into a standardized plant, so 13 then the subsequent three plants on that site would be 14 standard.
1-5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That might be a proceeding 16 in which Intervenor funding_would not apply.
17 MR. HANFLING: If it was a new proceeding, I 18 believe it could apply. I don't know counselor.
19 MS. PEARCE: Well, it applies to all applications 20 filed after 180 days after enactment, so that to the extent 21 something was in the pipeline and someone decided they wanted 22 to do this dual proceeding or to change the nature of the 23 proceeding, it would involve another application. To that 24 extent, the Intervenor funding would apply to that. I think 25 one of the reasons that the Intervenor-funding section was
I 6938.Jl.6 39
- ju 2
3 made effective 180 days after enactment is because of the rulemaking required under the Intervenor-funding section.
The Commission has 90 days to propose regulations to carry 4 out the Intervenor-funding regulations, and then it has 5 another 90 days to issue final regulations.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It says "no later than 7 180 days **11 8 MS. PEARCE: Yes, they have another 180 in which 9 they have to get the final out.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You could do it effective 11 earlier than 180 days?
12 MS. PEARCE: The regulations could be yes, that is 13 possibla, but that is why the 180 days is given.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There are estimates of our 15 capability to produce rules. I regard these times as 16 complimen.tary, perhaps optimistic.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The struggle to push this 18 one forward will probably exceed all bounds that we have 19 known in the past.
20 MS. PEARCE: As Susan points out, we were on notice.
21 MR. HANFLING: This bill could be passed almost any 22 time, now.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you very much, Bob.
25 MR. HANFLING: It was a pleasure.
(}vhereU:pon, at 3: 52 p .m., the meeting was adjou;r;-ned. 1