ML23151A382
| ML23151A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1989 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-002, 54FR07897 | |
| Download: ML23151A382 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 02/23/1989 PR-002 - 54FR07897 - STATEMENT OF POLICY ON LITIGATION OF TMI-RELATED ISSUES IN POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS:
REVOCATION OF SUPERSEDED POLICY PR-002 54FR07897 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-002 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:
STATEMENT OF POLICY ON LITIGATION OF THI-RELATED I SSUES IN POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDIN GS: REVOCATION OF SUPERSEDED POLICY PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
54FR07897 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
02/23/89 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS:
I I
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
0 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 54FR07897 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 02/23/89 NOTES ON COMMISSION APPROVED POLICY STATEMENT AND REVOCATION OF AN EARLIER TATUS ONE (SRM-H890202C).
FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
F RULE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-002 RULE TITLE:
STATEMENT OF POLICY ON LITIGATION OF THI-RELATED I SSUES IN POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDIN GS: REVOCATION OF SUPERSEDED POLICY
.OPOS£t> RULE SECY PAPER:
FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 88-358 CONTACTl: PAUL BOLLWERK CONTACT2:
PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
FINAL RULE SRM DATE:
DATE PROPOSED RULE I
I SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
02/16/89 DATE FINAL RULE 02/09/89 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
02/16/89 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP: 15 B18 MAIL STOP:
PHONE: 492-1634 PHONE:
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY
OOCKEf NUMB~PR **~: * ~*:,_ ~
PROPOSED RULE
- v CSL/ Ff 7 fqr;
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Statement of Policy on Litigation of TMI-Related m uifB 21 P6 :43 in Power Reactor Operating License Proceedings; Revocation of Superseded Policy Statement Concern*~g u
TMI-Related Procedures ooc~t Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Policy statement; revocation of policy statement.
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 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 Commission is revoking another policy statement relating to requirements imposed after the Three Mile Island accident as supers.cded by subsequent agency action.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
March 27, 1989.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Bol lwerk, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
20555.
Telephone:
(301) 492-1634.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Following the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2), the Commission took a number of regulatory measures designed to provide the appropriate mechanisms for assimilating the regulatory changes resulting fro:n rn1.. 2 ~1!tO tr.-= ongoing process for facility licensing. Principal among these was the Commission's issuance of policy guidance on how the regulatory requirements imposed as a result of
C S
0 F
~T I
ION dtistics
?ostr r:
~ rL.W t::.-.-----
o;, e!i J
Add' I op* s F' ;* rod,,,
....,d'"-
~ ----
~ cial Distribution __ !Wfl-yil ) R r I
I
[7590-01]
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 immediately effective.
In the years since the accident, however, the Commission 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,~, 10 CFR 50.44 (hydrogen control);
50.47, 50.54(s), and Appendix E to Part 50 (emergency planning); 50.54(w)
(property insurance); Part 55 (operator training). The NRC staff has advised the Commission that all regulatory changes needed to implement NUREG-0737 have been completed and that compliance with existing regulations and orders is a sufficient response to all applicable TMI-2 accident "lessons learned." As a result, the Comnission now believes further action is appropriate regarding the policy established by several policy statements published after the TMI-2 accident and discussed below.
2
I.
Commission Policy on Litigation of TMI-Related Issues in Power Reactor Operating License Proceedings
[7590-01]
Current CGm~ission 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, 12 NRC 654 (1980) (45 FR 85236; Dec. 24, 1980). However, the implementation of TMI lessons learned and other events have rendered much of the background discussion in this 1980 policy statement outdated ar.d confusing. Also, while the Connnission 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 makes 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 regulatiu~3.
Parties to a proceeding, the Licensing Bodt~s, 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 (1981).
II. Policy Statement Relating to Immediate Effectiveness Prior to the Commission's action in November 1979 adopting the now rescinded Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 (44 FR 65049), 1 the Commission's post-TM! policy relating to immediate effectiveness of Licensing Board initial decisions authorizing the issuance of construction permi t s and operating licenses was set forth in an October 1979 policy statement, 11 Interim Statement of Policy and Procedure" (44 FR 58559).
This policy statement was superseded by the November 1979 action and is hereby formally rescinded.
The Commission's existing immediate effectiveness procedures are found in 10 CFR 2.764.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this {bf£ day of 6li.i'--'--""9
- 1989.
or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chi Secretary of the Corrmission.
1The existing Appendix B to Part 2, 11General Statement of Policy and iJrocedures Concerning f'etitioris r'..irsuant to 2.802 for Disposal of Radio~:tive Waste Streams Below Kegui atory Concern,
11 which was issued on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839), is not related to this pol icy statement.
4