ML20106D072

Disapproves SECY-83-249, Oconee Unit 3 - Spent Fuel Pool Expansion

ML20106D072
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Oconee
Issue date:	07/12/1983
From:	Asselstine NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML19303C227	List: ML19303C226 ML20106C803 ML20106D032 ML20106D047 ML20106D072
References
FOIA-84-148 NUDOCS 8502120464
Download: ML20106D072 (1)

Text

p N O'T A T f 0 Y V 0 T E-RESPONSE SHEET

~

TO:

SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY 0F THE. COMMISSION.

FROM:

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE

SUBJECT:

sEcv-83-249. _OCONEE UNIT NO. 3 - SPENT FUEL. POOL r

EXPANSION APPROVED DISAPPfiOVED /-

ABSTAIN NOT PARTIC-IPATING~

REQUEST DISCUSSION e

COMMENTS:

.~

~

~

rJ

~

l-s 51bliAIURL h2 64 840905

/1-0 BELLS 4-14e PDR Walt.

SECRETARIAT NOTE:

PLEASE ALSO RESPOND'TO AND/OR COMMENT'ON OGC/0PE l

MEMORANDUM IF ONE-HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS. PAPER.

~

l L

!!k-SECY.FORMDEC.

80

=

o il STATEMENT BY C0tWISSIONER JAMES K. ASSELSTINE FEBRUARY 23, 1984' Mr. Chairman, I would like to.make a few comments on the need to extend the Commission's authority. to issue temporary operating licenses, the Commission's review of the NRC staff's no significant h'azards consid-eration determination pertaining to steam generator repairs at Three Mile Island Unit 1, and nuclear powerplant licensing reform legislation.

~-

In the past, I have supported an extension through December 31, 1984 of

~

7-the Commission's authority in section 192 of the Atomic Energy ~Act to issue temporary operating licenses for nuclear powerplants.

However, I have now concluded that an extension of this authority would be unwise.

I have reached this conclusion for two reasons.

First, there is no reliable evidence showir.g that the operation of any plant will be.

unnecessarily delayed due.t.o the hearing process. Thus, there is.no demonstrated need for the provision. Second, there are strong public policy reasons which weigh against extending the temporary operating license provision in the absence of a compelling showing that this authority is actually needed.

b' y y(~l O

9

/

i

2 i.

~

4 In preparing testimony for Congressional budget hearings, the NRC staff identifie'd four plants -- Shoreham, Catawba 1, ' omanche Peak I, and C

Limerick 1 -- for which, based upon the applicants' current estimates of construction completion, there existed some potential for licensing delay.

Of th'ose four, three plants -- Shoreham, Catawba and Commanche

. Peak -- have diesel generators manufactured by Transamerica DeLaval,

' Ltd. Based upon recent information indicating serious concerns about the reliability of TDL diesel generators, the NRC staff has alrea'dy announced that it will not issue an operating license for any plant with TOL diesel generators until these concerns have been resolved.

Givin this action, it appears highly unlikely that any of these three plants

~

will be ready to operate before the completion of the ongoing licensing hearings.

As for the fourth plant, Limerihk, the NR'C staff's estimate for construction completion indicates that this plant wi.11 not be ready,

o.

t.o operate prior to the scheduled completion of the hearing in 'that 7'

case.

In evaluating the reliability of applicants' present construction completion estimates, it is also instructive to look at how accurate previous utility construction completion estimates have been. A compar-ison of the NRC's first report to Congress on licensing and construction schedules in November 1980 with our ' ost recent report last month shows m

that the applicants' construction completion estimates have been ex-tremely unrealistic.

For all the plants listed, construction completion dates have now slipped a total of at least 730, months.

Of the 10 plants scheduled to be completed in 1981, only one was completed in that year.

Of the 11 plants scheduled to be completed in 1982, only two were l

l l

i

1 3

l completed in that year. And of the 11 plants originally scheduled to be completed in 1983, only one wa: actually completed last year.

Taken i

together, this information shows that there is noE now any reliable evidence that an extension of the Commission's teniporary operating license authority is needed.

My three colleagues who continue to support an extension of the tempo-rary operating license provision argue that even if one cannot now

~

identify any plant that r.equires a TOL, the authority to issue a tempo-rary operating license is. a useful safety valve to deal with unforeseen

~

cases should they arise. This argument presumes that there are no real disadvantages to the temporary' operating license authority.

In that regard, I see a serious potential disadvantage to the issuance of a

-c=_-

temporary operating license prior to the completion of the operating license hearing.

As the recent decision by our Licensing Board in the Byron proceeding demonstrated, the licensing hearing can bring to ligh't safety issues that are sufficiently serious to lead the Board to con-clude that the operating license cannot be issued.

Yet that decision would occur after the time when a temporary operating license would be issued and after the plant would have begun operation.

Indeed, at one point last year the Byron. plant was mentioned as a possible candidate for a temporary operating license.

This potential that a plant could begin operation before a significant safety issue is resolved is, in my view, a serious disadvantage to the temporary operating license pro-vision.

l

Finally, my three colleagues who. support extension of the TOL provision hav.e' lost sight of the fact that the temporary operating license authority was always envisioned as 'an interim solution to what was perceived at the time as an imediate threat 'to the operation of some 3

i dozen nuclear ' powerplants -- a threat, by the way, that never materi-alized. This interim authority was never intended to serve as a substi-tute for longer-term measures such as the allocation of staff effort to licensing reviews and improved management of the hearing process that.

f were needed to minimized unnecessary licensing delays.

It is important:

to recognize that the Commission has followed through with these.neces-sary long-term measures by reallocating staff resources to licensing reviews over the past two years and by establishing advisory schedules for the conduct of operating license. hearings.. Moreover, our Licensing y~ -

Boards have done an excellent job in carefully managing these hearings to assure that they are completed in an expeditious and yet faiE manner.

I believe that these longer-term measures will continue toEeffective in minimizing any unnecessary licensing delays for the plants still l.

under construction. Given the absence of any compelling. showing that the operation of any plant will be substantially delayed without the TOL o

authority, the effectiveness of the longer-tenn measures already adopted by the Commission and.the potential risk that a temporary operating licensewouldpermittheoperationoYaplantwithsignificantunre-solved safety, questions, I cannot support a request to extend the-a Comission's temporary operating license auth' rity.

o I

On the subject of the Commission's review of the NRC~ staff's no signifi-cant hazards consideration detennination for the TMI-1 steam generator I

m --. -,, _. - - - - - - -.. - - -

5

~

repairs, the Comission is now deadlocked with two Comissioners concludingthatthestaff'spreposeddeterminationisinconsistentwith the Sholly amendment and two Comissioners concluding that the staff's determination is appropriate.

The fifth Comissioner has decided that a Comission decision on the appropriateness of the staff's determination is not necessary at this time. The central question is whether the staff's implementation of the Comission's Sholly regulations is consis-tent with the statute and its legislative history.

In view of the fact that the NRC staff is continuing to apply its interpretation of the Sholly regulations in other cases and the Comission is unable to provide guidance to the' staff on the appropriateness of the staff's interpretation, the Committee may want to consider the need for addi-

~

tional guidance to the Comission, as part of action on the pending NRC

-< d authorization bill, on the intended scope of the Sholly amendment.

7 On the subje~ct of nuclear powerplant licensing reform, I continue to ~~

believe.that legislation would be helpful in developing the necessary regulatory framework for the ongoing efforts of several reactor manufac-turers to develop more complete standardized plant designs. The recent

~

experience with the construction of the St. Lucie 2 plant in Florida and the three-unit Palo Verde plant in Arizona, which both represent a form of standardization, indicates that the use of more standard.ized plant designs can have significant benefits in assuring that plants are constructed properly and within realistic cost and schedule estimates.

Some provisions of the NRC and DOE legislative proposals that are less directly related to the use of standardized designs, such as biickfitting restrictions, the elimination of certain hearing rights, modifications

7

.~

6 to adjudicatory hearing procedures, limitations on the role of licensing hearings and attempts to define safety-cost trade-offs, have proven to be controversial.

At the same time, there appears to be more of a consensus in favor of other provisions more directly supportive of standardizatio'n, such as the authority to issue site pemits, stan-l dardized design approvals and combined construction pemits and operat-ing' licenses, together with provisions to assure an opportunity for a hearing on each safety, security and environmental issue at the earliest possible stage in the licensing process.

1 Given the potential for consensus on these elements and their benefits in encouraging further standardization, I,would suggest.that the Comit-tee consider a more limited bill that focuses on the provisions most

• ~--

directly related to the standardization concept.

~

~'

'/

Finally, Mr. Chaiman, I feel that I have to make a few comh(ts on th6 Comission's response to your question regarding the Grace Comission's recomendations.

In that response, three Comissioners expressed the view that the Chaiman and the Executive Director for Operations should be given greater authority, and two Comissioners recomended Congressional action to replace the Comission with a single Acministrator.

On the subject of a s' ingle Administrator, I continue to believe that the Congress struck the right balance in adopting Reorganization Plan No. 1.

That Pla'nt gave the Chairman exclusive authority for responding to emergency situations as well as administra,tive responsibility for the agency's day-to-day operations, but it preserved the authority of the five Comissioners for policy

u...

. ~.

m

~

7 g

y o

e

~

formulation, rulemaking, orders.and adjudication,'and for the

~1

'i appointment and removal of'a few senior staff members in the agency --

on the order of 10 people, excluding the Boards and jthe ACRS.

In

[

adopking that. Plan, the Congress recognized the value.of. having'.

-significant-nuclear. regulation policy 5atters and decisions considered.

by a small collegial body composed of members with a range of-perspectives and experience,: rather.than by a single individual.

I:

think the Congress also recognized.that-if-the collegial -system is to w' rk effectively, the senior NRC staff must.be accountable and o

responsive to the pol-icy directions of the Comission, and all

~

Comissioners must have access to the information they need to carry out

~

their responsibilities. Although a single Administrator would probably

~

f be more efficient, I think there is a benefit in having the significant f c :=

and often complex, not to mention contentious, policy-issues involved in r n

nuclear regulation aired and debated by a collegial group with differing perspectives and experience.

i 4

In terms of expanded powers for the Chainnan-and the' Executive Director, i

I' fail to see what additional authority is needed or advisable in E

improving the Comission's operation..The Chairman already has the

^

[

authority to hire and fire all but a small handful of the 3,400 agency i

employees, and he has interpreted-the Reorganization' Plan its-giving him I

exclusive final authority to award bonuses for SES employees. These are i

l powerful management tools. Moreover, the Chairman has interpreted the I

Reorganization Plan as giving him the authority to direct the ~

j.

developgent of major policy initiatives by the staff without p'r'ior k.x consultation with the other Comissioners.

Even the present allocation i

8

~

- of authority:between the Commission and the Chairman has re'sulted in a

.few instances in which policy and rulemaking initiatives were either begun or stopped without a full ' discussion among the Commissioners.

It seems to me that any further expansion of -tha p'owers of the Chairman and the EDO would seriously undermine.the five Commissioners' policy naking responsibilities and, for all practical purposes, would convert the agency to a single Administrator form of operation.

e e

9 e

l ri s "

• o.

e n me I

4 I

i e

._