ML20155C206
Text
_-
/hU+
PDE f /A
...s#o UNITED STATES J
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
h
~g 8
o
,I WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k,...../
JAN 121983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 830110 Guy H. Cunningham-Executive Legal Director FROM:
T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
QUARTERLY PROGRAM BRIEFING ISSUES The following points addressed in the quarterly program briefing on January 7, 1983, require action as indicated.
1.
NRR should stay abreast of regional progress in regard to completion of assigned licensing actions and advise ED0 if delays 4
are developing that NRR cannot absorb.
2.
ELD should review the leg'islative history of PL 97-415, Section 12 I
(Sholly Amendment), prior to resubmitting the commission paper on t
promulgation of an affective rule to the EDO.
[
"~
3.
- NRR should complete the review of environmental technical speci-V fications before the Sholly Amendment procedures become effective.
j 4.
NRR should review the reactor operator requalification program and, if appropriate, submit a Commission paper to the EDO with proposed I
changes.
5.
NRR should review the prioritization of generic safety issues with the ACRS prior to submitting the Comission paper to the EDO in mid-March 1983.
6.
DEDROGR will look into the requirements of the Regulatory Requirements Analysis, recently issued, and advise EDO if that procedure is intended for USIs and, in general, assure requirements placed on the staff in this regard are clear and reasonable.
/T. A. Reh Assistant for Operations Office of the E00 cc:
J. G. Davis R. C. DeYoung R. B. Minogue 41 483 860327 2 45FR20491 PDR
N
- ?
gbl-g pg 4&
1 o
' 7XF kl 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
- NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION O
4 PUBLIC NEETING 5
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 97-415 6
7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130
'4 1717 H Street, N.
V.
Washington, D. C.
9 Tuesday, January 18, 1983 10 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at 11 2:01
- p. m.
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
13 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 15 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 16 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
17 S. CHILK
- 5. MALSCH 18 W. DIRCKS G. CUNNINGHAM 19 E. CASE W. OLMSTEAD 20 D. RATHBUN 21 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS
- 22 T. DORIAN 23 (W'
24 25 ge 33ClQ Cl.N
%PP ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, MMTXURID AR 9.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.j
r t
o ib,
%(. :. '
~
DISCLAIMER This is. an ' unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on January 18,.1983 in the
.,Comissi'on's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Tnis transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcHpt is intended solely for general infomationai purposes.
... As. provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forinal or informal
' record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in
~ this. transcript do not necessariTy reflect final detenninatiens or
~ beTiefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in T
any proceeding as the result cf or addressed to any, statement or argument
- contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
\\
l 9
\\
~..
-~
b
o 2
~ (>'
1 zaacIInIEEE 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE (presiding):
The 2:00
({}
3 o'cicek meeting is about to start.
The Commission first 4
has to vote the following vote on the briefing on
.We need to h$e3 d 5
implementation of Public Law 97-8415.
6 holdjon less than one week's notice.
All in favor say j
7 aye.
8 (A chorus of syes.)
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Opposed?
10 (No response.)
11 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
This 12 afternoon we hear from the Staff who has sent us up a a 13 fairly large paper discussing some of the regulations 14 they propose we put out for comment and one that will be 15 put out in final form to implement the various 16 provisions recently passed by the Congress.
17 Tom?
Jim?
18 (No response.)
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Bill?
20 MR. DIRCKS:
It's difficult to talk about 21 this, since one of the authors of the amendment is 22 sitting at the table.
23 (laughter.)
(4J%
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We can always ask him 25 about his comments.
ki ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3 cr~.
1 COHHISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'm looking at this 2
with a different perspective.
h.
3 (Laughter.)
4 HR. DIRCKS:
I thought you would be.
5 (laughter.)
6 MB. DIRCKS:
I thought it would be better if I 7
dropped out of the process at an early stage and let the 8
legal sections take it up.
Guy Cunningham is here and
-9 he vill go through it.
I think there are resource 10 impacts in this area when we get to the Sholly amendment 11 and we'd like to talk about that.
But first I'll let 12 Guy pick up on the various rule changes and then we can 13 come back to the resource requirements.
y s
14 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it correct that what 15 rou are going to do today is try to walk us through this 16 paper?
17 HR. DIRCKSs Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 We do not -- unless 19 there is an overriding sense of urgency on the part of l
l.
20 my colleagues, I don't think we intend to try to take 21 this to a vote.
It's just a briefino at the present l
I 22 time.
I 23 HR. DIRCKS:
It.'s a briefing to get you 24 through it and we thought the sooner we got down here 25 with it the better, because we do have the time
,cq l N)[
l l~
ALDERSoN REPonTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vlRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s
- 4 4
>^,
,'4 1
requirements in the statute to move on it.
2 Guy?
({;;
?
3 NR. CUNNINGHAMs Okay.- The package has three 4
separate rulemaking proposalsa dealing first with 5
temporary operating licenses pursuant to the new Section 6-192 of the Atomic Energy Act; secondly, a final rule 7
dealing with the criteria for making the no significant 8
hazards considera~ tion determina tion.
That rule was 9
originally published in proposed form, I believe it was, 10 in March 1980.
Then third and probably most complex are
'11 the proposed rules to implement the Sholly amendment.
12 I would propose, I think, to go through first 13 of 'all the two simpler ones, the temporary operating 14 license and the criteria, and then devote the major part 15 of our time to the Sholly amendment at the end.
16 The te_sporary operating license authority was 17 granted to the Commission in the authorization bill for 18 1982 and '83 and expires on December 31st of this year.
19 It authorizes the Commission, upon the request of an 20 applicant for an operating license, to grant interia 21 operating authority, first at a five percent power level 22 - and later, upon application, at higher power levels, 23 upon satisf action of the Commission that all the (d '
required safety criteria have been met.
24 25 In particular a prerequisite for issuance of I
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
5 6
(
the ACRS report 1
the interim operating. authority is tha t 2
has been issued, the Staff's SER and the supplemental (Th 3
SER which responds to the ACRS report, the final 4
environmental statement, and the appropriate emergency 5.
plan.
6 The authority was' requested by the Commission 7
following Three Mile Island as a temporary solution to a 8
temporary-problem, and the Committee report, the 9
conference report, makes-it clear that the Congress 10 intends that this authority be used only sparingly; but 11 that it is intended to take care of the problem of any 12 so-called impacted plants, which were the consideration 13 that prompted the sending up of the bill' to begin. with.
14 The Commission had such authority earlier, 15 which expired in 1972.
The new Section 192 very closely 4
to parallels the early authority, and for that reason the 17 regulations that we have put in this package very 18 closely track the ones that we re published and ef fective 19 in final form in the earlier 1970's.
Essentially, ther 20 track the statute in detail, just saying th at the 21 documents have to be completed and in evidence and then 22-the applicant on a motion supported by affidavit can 23 request tha interim operating authority.
' (':.
24 The statute provides that the Commission 25 should consider responsive affidavits or statements.
(C.7 A
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
'" "'"'^ "' 5" *^'"'"" " ?? 2"2u2c23.uy34
1 O-o 6
'fD 1
The cegulations provide for that opportunity.
And then 2
the Ccanission, without the necessity for. completing the
((l 3
operating license hearing can if it chooses issue the 4
interia operating authority, as I said first at five 5
percent and then later at a higher power level.
6 That in essence-is the temporary operating 7
license authority part of the package.
Unless there are 8
questions, I will move on to the significant hazards 9
consideration.
10 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do you want to do 11-questions on each individual section?
12 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
I think that would be 13 easier, particularly since this is quite different.
14 COMMISSIONE3 ASSELSTINE:
I had just two 15 questions on the temporary operating license 16 pro visions.
One was on page 8 of the supplementary 17 informstion section of the proposed rule.
At the top of 18 page 8 you note that the requirements of 189a do not 19 apply to the issuance of a temporary operating license, 20 but you do say -- you say, "Thus, the legislation 21 authorizes the Commission to use procedures other than 22 formal adjudicatory procedures in issuing a temporary 23 operating license.
In this regard, the Commission will 24 develop informal procedures case-by-case to resolve 25 particular issues as they a rise."
(3 a
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ _ _QVIR@lNIA AM1, S.W., WASHINGTON._0.C. 2002_4 (202) 554_2345_ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 1
I guess the question.I had was what additional 2
procedures other than what is included here do you 3
envision as possibly being necessary?
{~-]
4 MR. CUNNINGHAMa Well, what we have put in the 5
rule, of course, is the opportunity or the requirement 6
for an affidavit f rom the a pplicant and the opportunity 7 -for the public to respond.
8 COMMISSION ER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There are no further to requirements stated.
The Commission could just tak e
~
11 those, deliberate, and issue a decision.
12 But it could, if it chose, have a public
(-
13 meeting like this one and invite the applicant and the 14 commenters to address them.
But we've specifically left 15 that for a case-by-case development.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But at least what is 17 in here in your view would satisfy at least what is 18 required, which is simply the submission of affidavits 19 and the opportunity for comment?
20 MR. CONNINGHAMs That is right.
That creates 21 the opportunity for a written record.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So this would simply 23 allow as a. discretionary matter by the Commission some 24 additional step if the Commission chose to do that on a 25 case-by-case basis?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_j i
8
- 6 em i
1 MB. CUNNINGHAM:
That 's correct.
2 COHEISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The next question I 3
had was on page 11, the-last bulleted item on the pages
- {}
4 "Section 192 provides that the Commission's authority to 5
issue new temporary operating licenses shall expire on 6
December 31, 1983, thus these regulations would expire 7
on that date."
8 It is clear, is it not, from the legislation 9
that a temporary operating license could be issued any to time up to or through December 31st that would remain in 11 effect for some period of time beyond December 31st, 12 19937 13 HR. CUNNINGHAH That is clear.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE - Is it clear from the 15 regulations?
16 COMMIESIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, I guess that's 17 what I'm wondering is whether --
18 COMMISSIONER,AHEARNE:
It wasn't to me.
\\
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
The question I 20 had in my mind was the same one that the Chairman had 21 raised.
22 HR. CUNNINGHAM:
I'm nec sure that the 23 regulation has to be changed.
It might be advisable to P
24 put that in the supplementary information.
'de could d
25 expand and make that clear.
p;.
ALCEPSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
v' e
3 9
.m i
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Somewhere in there, 2
because I did have that same question.
It wasn't clear
(.}
3 wha t happened to all the licenses that migh t be out.
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
If they were issued by 5
December 31st, they would remain in effect according to 6
the terms the Commission had originally set, 7
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And the expiration 8
of our regulations as of December 31st, 1983, would not 9
have any negative impact on that.
o 10 MR. CUNNINGHAMs No, because the regulations 11 only deal with the matter of issuance of the license.
12 The license would remain in effect on its own terms.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They also deal with 14 amendments, don't they?
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Excuse me?
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Don't they deal also 17 though with amendments to a temporary operating 18 license?
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You can amend a TOL to raise 20 the power level, for example, but again I don't believe 21 you could do that after December 31st.
22 MR. MALSCH:
They also relate for example 23 suspending a temporary operating license.
If the
(?
24 applicant is processing the application with due 25 diligence, that requirement would be to apply presumably f.'.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
&j) VI@lNIA AR 9,W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345
~'
10
,rh 1
throughout the lif e of the temporary licensing, but that 2
2 would be beyond December 31st, 1983~.-
You wouldn't want
((t 3
that authority to lapse.
4 3R. CUNNINGHAM:
I would think we would 5
probably still have that authority under other sections 6
of the Act, but it may be that we should take a look at 7
that.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'm not sure that I 9
fully agree with your other statement, Guy, that if you 10 had a temporary operating license, for example that was 11 issued in November of 1983 with the five percent power 12 level at the original level, why couldn't someone amend 13 that to authorize opera tion a t a higher than five 14 percent level' af ter December '83, since that would be in 15 effect an amendment to the license that was issued prior 16 to the statutory deadline.
17 HR. CUMNINGHAM:
My impression had been that 18 our authority to issue licenses is an authority to issue 19 amendments as well, and that the Act says that it 20 expires on December 31st.
But we'd certainly be willing 21 to look more closely at tha t question.
22 CONNISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
I wasn't sure that it 23 was tha t clear.
I had the sense that if you got in f.%
d--
24 under the wire tha t a t least for that facility you would 25 be okay.
But I guess that is the other question I would fi ss/
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
u
_ _400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
11 1%(.
1 raise.
That covers mine.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For myself, I don't
{
4 have any difficulty with the rule.
But I' don't think I 5
like the background section, which gets into the 6
question of whether it looked like there were going to 7
be delays or there weren't going to be delays, and I 8
would suggest either shortening th a t, saying "the rule 0
reflects the legislation which passed."
10 MB. CUNNINGHAMa Hell, I understand your 11 point.
The reason it was' drafted that way is that was 12 essentially the case that the Commission made when it 13 requested the legislation.
(
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, it limited 15 itself to the low power phase.
I guess I just don't 18 think there is a need to go into all of the ins and outs 17 of that, or else it needs to be, I think, more neutrally 18 worded.
I have some minor changes I would make if you 19 were going to retain it, although I would prefer to 20 simply shorten it.
I can give you that separately.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM We would certainly be pleased 22 to see your suggested word changes, and if any other 23 Commissioners have any suogestions.
ps (1
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have no problem 25 with some slight word changes.
It's only a pa ra gra ph
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
12 (3
' 1 we're talking about, isn't it?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Well, it's about a
'^
3 page and a half all together.
4 HR. CUNNINGHAH Pages 2 to 47 5
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Most of the rest of 6
it is pretty.vell --
7 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE4 I think the first 8
paragraph is the only one that really talks about that.
- 9 The rest is a f actual description of what the Commission 10 rules were.
11.
COEMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I even thought the 12 discussion of the dele.y issue was couched ' pretty much in.
13 terms of a f actual recitation of the situation, at least 14 in 1980, the late 1980 time frame.
But at that time it 15 did appear that delays would occur between the time of 16 con struction --
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it appeared to 18 some people it would.
If you said "it was argued that,"
~
it would be different.
I just felt there was no need to 19 20 go into th a t.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What word changes would 22 you like?
23 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I would argue
('.
'O 24 that if the basic notion is that you want to retain 25 this, I would say "It was argued that there was a
,( '.
...e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- "'"'^^*'~8*~*^*"'"'";
" <2o23 ss4;234s
o-13
,n 1
possibility" 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure.
(
3 COBBISSIONER GILINSKY:
"that there would 4
be delays."
~
HR. CUNNINGH AH :
Right. TWercanTeertIi35fIm$$It 5
_ -enne :wr~"*~m" 6
thitrehange CAndEif;any-ot hers : are" sugge sted 4 tolus,1ve, l.f5p
~~
,7,. tn men g n.,g ry +.k 3 : " ? ??W. +v.,;.,_
7 v111ttake;th.es t nto; account'.
i 8
COHEISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's just two of us 9
who are willing to do that so far.
l 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I guess I would like j
11 to see the changes.
l L
12
-(Laughter.)
13 HR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, as you know, this paper I
14 was prepared in order to get things before the
(
15 Commission as quickly as possible.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
Yes.
I i
17 MR. CUNNINGHAH4 No one other than the Staff I
18 had seen it in final form.
We have consulted with OGC l
l 19 early on, but we would an ticipa te that af ter this 20 briefing there vill be other comments and we will have a 21 revision at some point in the very near future.
22
~
23
['.
24 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
. c?;1MGYRID (IfL Bt1 t%O)30'@itiM @& EEE)3 6878) (23 EtG
14
,- s 1
COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess only have two 2
questionse.Due first one was to what plants do you now H'
3 expect this night apply?
'4 ER. CUNNINGHAHa 1 believe that the only i
5 candidate is possibly Shorehan, but that case --
I 6
NR. CASES Two possible candidatesa Shorshan 7
and possibly Perry.
They are both unlikely but 8
possible, I would say.
9 00HNISSIONER AHEARNEs And the second question 10 is on page 18, under section (c), it says "The 11 Commission will not issue a temporary operating license 12 until all significant safety issues significant to the 13 f acility in question have been resolved to its 14 satisfaction, taking into consideration the power level 15 and tise period requested."
18 I was, I guess, somewhat puzzled by the 17 finality of that statement.
Isn't that equivalent to 18 the kind of a conclusion we would reach if we were about 19 to issue an operating license to the plant, "all 1
20 significant safety issues have been resolved to our 21 satisfaction"?
c i
22 ER. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, I think that has to 23 sean resolved to your satisfaction for the purpose of 7-A (CM 24 temporary operating authority because there was also
'8 25 lan90:$ge in here that makes it clear you cannot prejudge ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.)
e 15 1
the outcome.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Perhaps then you could
{
3 put that phrase in.
4 HR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is definitely in here in i
5 other places.
That was specificclly 6
COMMISSIONER ASSElSTINE:
I agree with that.
7 I think it would be useful to put that in.
l 8
ER. CUNNINGHAM:
But it may be that they ought 9
to be in closer proximity.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or at least 11 cross-r ef ere nced.
12 ER. MAISCH:
Actually, you shouldn't have 13 standards like this in Part 2.anyway.
The actual 14 standard for amendnent issuance is in Part 50, and 15 they've got the statutory language there.
I wasn 't sure 1
16 why this, or for that matter (d) needed to be in Part 2.
i 17 MR. CUNNINGHAH4 The short answer is we had it i
I 18 in there back in '72 and
'73.
We could do some 19 tin ke ring.
It's not essential.
You are right that the 20 standard is set forth in Part 50.
IE[c[uld"_j ust_" b'e"ta k en' 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
r - - - -
kuty,z 22 COH5ISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
,, 23
- 24 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE Again, tha t is two who 25 f eel that way.
We are giving you lots of advice but w
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s m,..
- +
16 1
(Laughter.)
2 MR. CUNNINGHAMs-Not hearing any contrary
- D, 3 : advice, I will go with.the two that I hear.
W 4
(Laughter.)
5 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs That sounds like a good 6
approach.-
7 Tom, do you have any?
8 COBBISSIONER ROBERTSa (Nods in the negative.)
9 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
All right, I guess 10 that's all.
4 11-Harty, did you have any more?
12 MR.-HALSCH I ha d one peculiar issue.
.I 13 don't know what to do about it.
What would happen in 14 the situation in which a licensee already had a 15 low-power 5-percent license under our current rules?
16 Would we have to require him to refile f or a - temporary 17 low-power license in order for him to go through the.
L 18 actions of asking for a full-power temporary license?
19 We couldn't come up with a clear answer to that 20 question, so we're thinking about it.
21 COMMISSION ER AHEARNE:
Did you have any 22 particular plant in mind?
23 ER.' CASE It would be a possibility with y ::s
'al 24 Shoreham because one might argue that they could get 25 their 5-percent license without off-site emergency ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
a 17 rs 1
plannin7 and be going along swimmingly and then suddenly 2
run into a problem on off-site emergency planning that (i
3 would go beyond.
I could see that possibility.
4 MR. MALSCH:
It also occurred to me that what 5
would happen say in Diablo if the record were reopened?
6 I am not-sure.
It wasn't clear to me that the situation 7
would never arise, and if it did arise, I couldn't see a
~
8 clear route to avoid going through what looked to me 9
like an empty exercise of applying for a temporary 10 low-power license when they already had one.
But I just-11 offer it as a problem to.think abo'ut.
12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
You're talking about under this 13 statute --
14 HR. HALSCH:
Well, and the regulations.
15 MR. OLMSTEADs
-- when they already had one 16 under 50.57(c)?
17 MR. HALSCHs Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To take advantage of 19 this statute's provision allowing them to keep cranking 20 up above 5 percent.
21 MR. OLMSTEAD:
But they're allowed to do that 22 under 50.57(c), too.
23 -
MR. MALSCH:
True, but the question would be 24 suppose they have gotten a low-power license under 50.57 25 after holding a hearing on low-power issues.
Let's
. (
\\:
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18 M
1 suppose that the hearing on full-power issues vere still 2'
in progress and they wanted to obtain a temporary 3
full-power license prior to completion of that hearing.
(
4 Would they have to go through the actions of also 5
applying for a temporary low-power license when;they 6
already had one just to be able to avail themselves of 7
the opportunity of -filing application for a temporary 8
full-power license?
That doesn't seen to make any sense.
9_
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Jim, was this something 10. that came up?
i '
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE No. '
11 12 (Laughter.)
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Bill?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It's not cne that we've 15 considered.
We can give it some thought.
This Act only 16 provides authority for amending incrementally licenses 17. issued under it.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Yes.
I am-afraid 19 the way it's structured you probably would'have to go 20 through the exercise of getting a 5-percent temporary 21 operating license under the section.
That's my 22 suspicion.
23 NR. MALSCH:
We are looking at it to see O.. '
24 whether there's a way around what would appear to be a 25 sort of a needless exercise.
4 4
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
-s-39 g
1 CONNISSIONEB ASSELSTINEa Yes.
I don ' t think 2
it's addressed by intent at all.
The.only question is
.h 3'
who ther you're locked into that by the words of the '
4 statute.-
5 NR. CUNNINGHAHa The next part of the package,-
6'.which is Enclosure 3, deals with the standards for 7. making a determination that a proposed OL amendment 8
involves no significant hazards consideration.
As I 9
mentioned, these rules were proposed in March of 1980, 10 and ' ve hava in this package a final notice of rulemaking.-
11 There is a correction package which was 12 circulated today to make' the rule conform to the 13 approach we have taken in implementing Sholly.
- Clearly, 14 it is important that final action not be taken on this 15 until we decide which var we are going to go on Sholly 13 so that the appropriate conforming language is in there.
17 The changes or the criteria apply only to 18 operating License amendments, not to construction permit
\\
19 amendments.
The legislation only applies to operatino
^
20 licenses, and in f act I den 't believe we have ever made 21 no-significant-hazard consideration findings with regard 22 to construction permit amendments.
23 The no-significant-hazards consideration c
. w '.
G 24 finding is basically a procedural one.
It deals with 25 the question of whether or not we notice in advance an
[c',1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
20 p
1 opportunity for hearing.
The criteria for making that 2
determination in the rule are essentially the same as 3
they were in the proposed rule.
4 And there are three criterias whether there 5
is a significant increase in probability or consequences-6 ~ of an accident previously evaluated; whether the 7
amendment would create. the possibility of an accident.
8 different from those.previously evaluated; and whether 9
it involves a significant reduction in the margin of-10 safety.
11 I# any of those findings were met, then there 12 would be a significant-hazards consideration.
13 COMMISSION ER AHEARNE:
Does it also hold-true 14 that if none of them are met that it is not a 15 significant hazard?
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think that's true.
17 Ed, would you agree?
18 ER. CASE:
Yes, I would agree.
19 MB'. CUNNINGHAM:
Those are the only three 20 criteria which are spelled out in the rule.
4 21 Ihe supplementary information gives -- on page 22 20 you will find the -- nine examples of amendments j
23 which do involve significant-hazards consideration and a
l 24 eig'ht examples that do not involve significant-hazards 25 considerations.
(~
4. 'j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
21 1-These criteria are essentially the same as 2-those -- in fact, they are the same as those applied by
.{
3 NRR now.
4 C05HISSIONER AHEARNEs Given the answer you 5
just gave me, perhaps, Ed, you can explain to me why
~
6 reracking a spent-fuel storage pool, which one of those 7
three is it?
8 MR. CASE:
That was put in there because'of 9
the Congress.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I was just told that it 11 has to meet one of those; if it doesn't, then it isn't.
12 And I don't think it was put in there because of-the 13 Congress.
Congress didn't tell us to do that.
14 ER. CASE:
Yes, they did.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
That was in the 16 Conference Report.
17 COEMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Was it in the 18 Conference Report?
Or was it in the Senate Report?
s
\\
19 COEMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't think it's
~
in -- well, let's see, that's a good question.
20 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The paper doesn't quote 22 it as being in the Conference Report.
The paper quotes 23 it as being in the Senate Report.
(',.j 24 COMMISSIONER ASSE1STINEs That's right, it 25 does.
+.
'j ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. lNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) $54-2346
t 22
..P".
t 1
MR. CASES-Well, depending on the raracking, I 2
could see 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This just says."any
{'
4 reracking."
5 HR. CUNNINGHAMs. I don't see it. in'the 6. Conference Report no w.
I thought it was.in the 7: Conference Report, but it was clearly added there at the 8
instigation of the legislative process.
9 CONNISSIONER AHEARNEa Are we bound if it is a 10 Senate report but it doesn't get into the conference 11 report, are we bound by that by regulation?
12 MR. EALSCH:
I don't know how to answer that 13 ' question in the abstract.
14
-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is not the 15 abstract.
16 (Laughter.)
e 17 MB. 3ALSCH I haven't seen the rest of the 18 legislative history.
It would depend upon how importan t 19 that statement in the Senate report is in the overall 20 construction. of the statute.
If the statute is 21 ambiguous, and that is the only guidance we have,.it 22 could be quite important to take that into account.
. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I think at the moment I e.
W 24 find a basic inconsistency.
I think you would have to 25 add a number u on page 27.
$.h.*
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
e 4
e
.j
-23 1
-,3 1
(Laughter.)
2 MR. CASE 4 If I were going to do it that way, fp s
-3 I vould just add that particular example..
L:l j yf 1
f
-4
'CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa Let me ask a question.
a 5
COENISSIONER AHEAREE Yes.
I think I am n
6 going to ask them to essentially go back and look at the t
7 legisla tive history to see.
At the moment it's just of V
8 int eres t.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs When you say involves 10 a significan t consequence of an ~ accident previously 11 evaluated, do you mean the step that is contemplated or 12 that it involves an issue which has the possibility.of 13.significantly increasing the probability of consequence 14 of.an accident previously evaluated?
Is that clear?
15 HR. CUNMINGHAM:
No.
Clearly, the 16 considerati6n related to the amendment 17 NR. CASE:
The operation of the facility in 18 accordance with the proposed amendment.
So when you 19 deal with the merits of the amendment itself --
20 COMMISSIONES GILINSKYs What concerns me here, 21 it seems to me that somewhere we ought to be dealing 22 with the importance of the problem, the safety 23 importance.
0' 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
This specifically tells us to 25 separate the procedural issue f rom the merits.
What
' (p
<g ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
'4
'24 6
., I
.,,s 1
these critaria are intended to do is to identify the 2
types of actions which could involve, and if there is
'3 any accident consideration involved, then you have to
- {
4 find the significant-hazards consideration.
You can then evaluate it on the merits.and find it's okay and 5
6 approve it.
7 COEEISSIONER GILINSKY I guess I don't follow 8
that.
.Let's take a hypothetical example.
Suppose there 9
is a crack in a pipe of some pressure vessel.
If you 10 watch it carefully, you will always be able to catch it-11 ' before it's a break.
So you propose an amendment for 12 increased surveillance.
13 Now, in view of the Staff, the NRC, that may 14, compensate f or the deficiencies or the safety problems, 15 but it seems to me there may be -- it is a serious 4
16 safety problem which has been addressed but may not have 17 been addressed satisfactorily.
I guess I would say tha t 18 is something that involves a significant-ha za rds 19 consideration.
20 Is that the way you see it?
Does that fit 21 with the definitions or not?
22 ER. CASE:
I haven't rehearsed this.
That's 23 not the way.I see these words.
If the Staff felt there
.~
G 24 was a small increase in the probability of an accident, 25 it could say no sianificant -- this did not involve a sf ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.,,. _. _ _ _ ~ _
25 1
significant-hazards consideration.
2 If on the other hand. it was a significant 3
increase, albeit acceptable, then you would find
{-
4 significant hazard.
So there is a difference between 5
looking at the merits.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I~am not sure I follow 7
this.
There is a safety problem which is bing 8
compensated for by some steps in this case, increased 9
surveillance.
And that is what is proposed for, say, 10 the next year of operation.
Now, some people may feel 11 that that is not sufficient action, that you have to n
12 replace the piece of pipe or whatever.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's the merits when you 14 say you do not think it is sufficient action.
The 15 threshold procedural question is Is there a potential 16 for a significant safety problem here?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY You're dealing with a 18 significant safety problem, you may feel you have dealt 19 satisfac'torily with it, but certainly the problem itself 20 is a significant problem.
If it isn't a significant 21 problem to begin with, you wouldn't be talking about it.
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM But if it is a significant 23 problem that requires consideration of the accident M..
24 considerations, then it meets the requirement for a 25 significant-hazards consideration.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, thu, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_ _ ~.,
26 7
1 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKYa That's what I am 2
asking about, whether this applies to the problem or the
{'t 3
solution.
4 3R. CUNNINGHAH4 To the problem.
5 HR. CASE I am sorry, that's not the way I 6
read the language, Guy.
7 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY That's what I as 8
trying to get at.
9 NR. CASES On page 27 it says, "... unless it to finds that operation of the facility in accordance with 11 the proposed amendment woulda (1) involve a significant 12 increase in the probability" --
13 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY Is that the language 14 of the law?
15 ER. CASEa No, that's the regulation.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, the final 17 regulation.
Well, I guess I would tie it to the 18 problem, unless persuaded otherwise.
19 20 21 22 23 (v ~
24 25 Q-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4o0 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
-\\
27
-(
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In the case you're s
2 talking about, if there were a crack that led them to 3
have whatever the crack was in that had the plant out of (7-4~
compliance, ycur concern is that they would then be able 5
to get into compliance by proposing an amendment?
6 MR. CASES.Looking at it more frequently than 7
they would have.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me the 9
common. sense test of -- we've got to be setting up a 10 standard that makes sense using the words that one 11 ordinarily does.
And it seems to me a situation like 12 this involves a significant hazard.
13 Now, you may feel it has been dealt with i
14 satisfactorily.
Tha t's the purpose of the amendment.
15 But however we trast the more important items, it ought 16 to fall in that basket.
17 MR. CASES But we tried to set the standard to 18 decide shich was more important.
19 67MMISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, there has to be 20 a plus.
That isn't decreasing safety; that's increasing 21 safety.
well --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Except 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Certainly where f'
C 24 there's a significant reduction in the margin of 25 safety.
No one's going to argue about that.
. (.
- s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
-28 1
MR. CASE:
You might get caught there.
2 COREISSIONER GILINSKY:
Possibly.
3 COMBISSIONER AHEARNE4 Because the amendment
, {}.
4 would be to' propose --
5 3R. OLMSTEAD:
It depends on the nature of the 6
amendment.
If they're allowed to operate without the 7
increased surveillance, all they 're doing is coming in i
8 and saying we think we ought to increase surveillance, 9
so then it is not going to involve significant hazards to because they're already being permitted to operate with 11 a longer frequency between inspections.
~
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If the issue is not 13 being allowed to operate versus being allowed to operate 14 with increased surveillance --
15 3R. OLMSTEADs Then you might well have a 16 significant hazards consideration, because you have to 17 look beyond just t.he frequency of the surveillance to 18 see if they can or cannot operate.
If they can operate, 19 then the nature of the amendment is to increase safety.
2L COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you have something 21 further?
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa It seems to me th e re 's 23 something wrono if you set up a system in which a 24 solution, no matter how slight, to a problem will 25 ultimately be regarded as significant, and that puts O.]
ALDER 3oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
29
.n.
Ei 1
that whole issue into the unimportant basket.
2 COMMISSIONER AREARNE4 But I'm not sure it
{
3 'does.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Well, if it.doesn't, 5
how is it caught by 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 I think it would be 7
caught in number 3, because in the sense the amendment 8
would allow them to continue operating; because I think I
9.they hypothetical case you came up with is there is some 10 damage to the system where otherwise you would make then 11 shut down and they would ask for permission to keep 12 operating for some period of time, and.the argument for 13 increased surveillance will protect it.
g 14 But the argument now is that there is a 15 reduction, a significant reduction in the margin of 16 safety because prior to that it was supposed to be 17 o pe ra ting an undamaged system.
Now you're operating a 18 damaged system with someone watching it on the grounds is tha t they can shut the plant down if necessary, but tha t 20 is lowering the margin of safety.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I was looklu:
22 for some interpretation and maybe that's it.
23 NR. CASE:
I agree with that.
p.,
24 MR. OLMSTEAD4 I certainly agree wi th tha t, b u 25 the reason that it works is because there are two types t
I'.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2346
-5 30
'?
1 of amendments:
amendments that allow the plant to 2
operate when it would otherwise be required to shut 3
down, and smer sents that for whatever reason accomplish
{l 4 some other purpose but that they would continue to 5 operate. And that frequently drives how NRR looks at 6 the-significant hazards criteria. 7 If the plant cannot continue to operate under 8 its present operating conditions without shutting down, 9 then you're perfectly right. Usually, nine times out of 10 ten it's going to be in the third criteria. 11 If, on the other hand, the plant can continue 12 to operate but for some other reasons, maybe for ' (~- 13 operating afficiency, they want the amendment, more than 14 likely it's going to be one of the other criteria. 15 HR. CASES What he's saying is the third one 16 in particular is designed f or the kind of examples we 17 are bringing up where'a plant would otherwise be 18 required to shut down. Basically the question is 19 determined on the staff judgment about the reduction in 20 the margin of safety as to whether it's a significant 21 hazards consideration, whether it's minor, no, major, 22 yes. No matter how you judge this, it's a j udgmen tal 23 call every time. (// COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Is this rubric of any 24 25 other significance? \\ (?2 1 t / ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (20 3 554 2345
31 p V2 1 MR. CASE: Yes. It comes from the regulations 2 which define an unreviewed safety question. An 3.unreviewed safety question is-something the licensee J{])- 4 must seek approval of in changing operation or design, 5 and that is defined essentially as these words without 6 the."significant" in there. 7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: How many license 8 amendments are there per year approximately? 9 MR. CASE: Six hundred. 10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS Six hundred? 11 MR.' CASE: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What percentage involve 13 no significant hazards consideration? 14 MR. CASE: Very high. Upwards in the 90s, in 15 the staff judgment. 16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS High 90s? 17 ER. CASE: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Which are of no 19 significance? 20 MR. CASES Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY So 60 are significant? 22 MR. CASES Two percent is what last year's 23 sta tistics were. f% N' 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have a couple of 25 questions. One h'as to do with the three criteria for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2345
~ 32 l 1 making the no significant hazards consideration 2 determination. 3 Back when -- I think it was particularly in {. 4 the Senate -- this provision was first considered, I. - 5 recall that there was at least some testimony to the 6. effect that the criteria that NBC put out as a proposed 7 rule, which in a sense is these criteria, were not 8 particularly clear or predictable in their application. 9 And I realize that in looking in the summary to of the comments that that does not seem to have been a 11 predominant comment that the agency received at the time 12 on the proposed rule. Nevertheless, that was one of the 13 comments that I think the Congress heard when it was 14 considering this provision. 15 There is language in the conference report 16 that I think I says fairly clearly that when the 17 Commission develops these criteria, it is to make a 18 special effort to make sure the criteria are clear and 19 easily applicable and will result in a fairly certain -- 20 in a degree of certainty in the dete rminations. And I 21 think we have included that language in the statement of 22 considerations as well. 23 I guess the question I have is you are ( 24 proposing putting out the criteria as a final rule. 25 Would it make sense, given the direction in the (:? ) .) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 654 2345
33 <m ~ 1. conference report and given the fact that the other 2 aspects, the procedural aspects, if you will, of the l(} 3 Sholly provision, have to go out as a proposed rule in 4 any event, would it make sense to put out the criteria - 5 as a proposed rule for one more round of comment.1ust to-6 ensure that that particular point is covered? 7 You know, again I recognize.that this does not 8 appear to have been a very strong comment. It was made 9 on the original proposed rule when it was put out in 10 1980. 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you saying, Jim, 12 tha t you would want comment to go out quoting the 13 conference report? 14 COMMISSIONER ASSE1STINEs No. What I'm saying 15 is before we adopt the criteria as a final rule, we 16 perhaps oucht to consider putting those criteria out as 17 a proposed rule, recognizing that what that might invite 18 is comments on the extent to which those criteria 19 respond to the direction that the agency had in the 20 confe rence report. i 21 MR. CASES For one thing, it would depend on 22 what you do with the Sholly amendment. For instance, i 23 there is some consideration, I gather, of making them Q!; v' 24 interimly effective. If so, then you would need the 25 significant hazards consideration, wouldn't you? i ALDER 4.oM REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 i
l 34 -p, 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: But they could go together. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: These aren't really ([) 3 changed very much from before. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: These are essentially what 5 ven t out bef ore. 6 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE: Since they are 7 essen tially the same thing that you would be asking for 8 comment on, I believe that you would have to have some 9 reason for asking for that comment, so you would have to 10 say something such as the conference report directed 11 that the standards be capable to be applied, et cetera. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 And draw a clear 13 distinction. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE And I guess one would 15 have to go on to say we believe this does it, and if it 16 d oe sn ' t, how would you propose that it be changed to 17 make it do that. 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Without any other 20 specific comment it doesn't make any sense. 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSIINEs That would be the 22 only basis I see. 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The alternative basis would (:~ 24 be to put them in context. You now have the Sholly 25 amendment. f., ,1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
.s 35 t ~, (> 1 CONNISSIONER AHEARNEa-Except you always had' 2 significant hazards issues. f({ '3 MR. CUNNINGHAHa I would prefer not to put 4' them out for comment again, but if you're looking for a. 5 basis, that would be a basis to tie them to the Sholly 6 ' rule. 7 CORNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess it basically 8-boils down to two questions t one, are you all satisfied 9 that those criteria really do respond to the directions 10 that we hai in the conference report, that ther really 11 do draw a clear distinction between no significant 12 hazard considerations amendments and those that do 13 involve significant hazards consider ations, and do you 14 believe the y respond to the consideration -- 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Is that a prefatory 16 question? 17 COMNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. 18 COMBISSIONER AHEARNEa The question is can the 19 conference report be satisfied; is it possible to meet 20 tha t? 21 ER. CUNNINGHAM: My response is going to be 22 ve've been as responsive as we can. 23 COMMISSIO N ER AREARNE: That's not doing what f i 24 the conference report said to do, bu t tha t 's a se pa ra te 25 question. h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,IHC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
36 1 COEMISSIONER ASSELSTINEa I didn't write the 2 conference report. 3 HR. CASES When we move in that direction with ({'; 4 the examples, I think that is the best you can do to try --5 to ensure that consistency is in there. 6 COMM"ISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Consistency wasn 't 7 included in the direction. '8 (Laughter.) 9 HR. CUNNINGHAM: Of course, part of the .10 attempt to be as clear as we can is inclusion of the ~ 11 examples, both 9, which d', and 8, which don't,. and 12 vice-versa. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What are at least 14 some of those exacties? There's another one that I want 15 to raise next. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CONHISSIONER ASSELSTINE Whether this is the 18 Sholly amend %ent. I guess for myself I would still vant 19 to think a little bit about the po ssibili ty of putting 20 out the criteria for comment again. It is just because 21 I do remember that there were some who at least argued 22 that these three criteria were not clear at all, and 23 they did not draw a clear differentiation between the 'w/ 24 two kinds. 25 I never did hear anyone come up with any f; .) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.4 37-1 concrete suggestions or proposals on how those or other 2 criteria could be modified or developed.. 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The only distinction (]Y 4 I've heard is all smendments are significant hazards. 5 (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 That is clear, and 7 it is certain.' 8 I guess the next question I have is new 9 example 9. On examples for amendments that are likely 10 to involve significant hazards considerations, I 11 understand the reference to the one phrase in the 12 conference report that you have on page 19. I guess I 13 have a couple of questions. 14 Does including example 9 in that list mean 15 that -- does that resolve the no significant hazards 16 considecation issues they a re likely to involve? Are 17 you saying that in all cases where you have an amendment 18 permitting a significant increase in effluent emitted by 19 a power plant that that would be dispositive of whether 20 you have a significant hazards consideration amendment? 21 MR. CUNNINGHAMs I'm getting advice from that 22 end of the table. 23 MR. CASES It says "likely." It doesn't say 24 "always." I think it's more or less a prima f acie case l 25 unless you had some reasons to the contrary. O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 m
38 1 COREISSIONER AHEARNE: I was curious. 2 Guy, I'm not sure how closely you were 3 involved. I was wondering whether any of the authors {- 4 looked through this. Are they f amiliar with-what the 5 Commission did do and the conclusion it did reach about 6 the THI positions that we have taken? 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think the answer to that is 8 res. 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The conclusion is that 10 this is not inconsistent with that? 11 MR. CASES Yes, that is my conclusion. It 12 wasn't meant to be a backing away. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs As I understand it, f 14 I gather the one sentence or that ph rase in the 15 conference report did engender some discussion when the 16 conference report was considered. I've gone back to 17 look at that. But I ga ther tha t the re was some is discussion of that phrase and it= relationship, for 19 example, to any future case that would resemble the 20 krypton bedding issue. 21 Did you all look at that, too, when you 22 decided en incorporating the new element 9? 23 O '~ 24 25 (y., x. s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
39 1 ER. CUNNINGHAH I don't know that we went 2 beyond the. text of the conf erence report. 3 NR. OLMSTEADs We had some conversation to- { 4 lead us to believe that tha t is correct. 5 COMNISSIONER AHEARN.Es You might want to track 6 that. 7 HR. OLHSTEAD: Tom might be 'able to address 8 this be tter than I. 9
- NR. CORIAN:
Tom Dorian from ELD. We split it 10 with the various people who testified before Congress as 11 voll as the staff and people who are working on the 12 conference report. This is the language that they said 13 they thought should be put in as an example. f 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was congressional 15 staff advice? 16 MR. DORIAN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I would like to, I 18 guess, reserve a little bit on this element as well. I 19 seem to recall that there may have been some discussion 20 among the floor consideration of the conference report 21 that might shed some more light on whether this is 22 intended to mean that you are supposed to give special 23 attention to these kinds of consideration in deciding E whether this is a no-significant-hazards consideration 24 25 and in ruling out this authority. (, s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAJY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WA$HINGTo%. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
40 [,r' 1 MR. DORIAN It is clear, by the way, that we 2 'should give that special attention; _that came through. ({.} 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But that would 4 certainly not be dispositive on the issue. -5 3R. DORIANs I don't think it is. It says 6 likely or not likely. In that case it is a prima facie 7 case unless there is other evidence. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Tom, did you bounce 9 that -- here the congressional staff says it should be 10 in there. Did you go back to NRR and see whether that 11 should be definitely in there as an example? The 12 original list of examples were constructed primarily 13 with the technical staff. t 14 MR. CASE: Yes, this went back. There was no 15 comment on it that I know of on the addition of that 16 criteria. There were on some of the other issues. 17 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. They were vocal on those 18 that they firmly disagreed with, and we removed them. 19 [ Laughter.] 20 COMMISSIONER ASSElSTINE: In any event, this 21 list is for examples of one side or the other, and is 22 intended to be only a' list of those that at least on 23 first impression appear to be caseu in which you either 24 do or do not have significant hazards consideration, and 25 it is not intended to be dispositive in any of those 0,) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
d ~ ~ s. 41 1 ' cases. 2 HR. CUNNINGHAHa Dispositive of the. merits? ( 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Dispositive of 4 whether it is involving significant hazards ~5 consideration. For example, can you have a' proposed 6-amendment which would, if adopted, permit a significant 7 increase in the amount of effluence or radiation emitted 8 f rom a power plant? That might well be determined on a 9 case-by-case basis to be an amendment involving 10 no-significant-hazards consideration. 11 HR. CUNNINGHAHa I would think it unlikely. 12 HR. CASE: But possible? 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But possible. 14 HR. OLHSTEAD I don't want to confuse the 15 example you just gave with the THI situation because I 16 don 't necessarily think that they are the same 17 hypothesis. 18 HR. CASE: No. 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that because of 20 the term "significant"? 21 3R. CASE Yes. l l 22 HR. OLHSTEADs Yes, and you haven 't defined i 23 the term over which you are talking. If we had /" l 'l' 24 considered originally in all of our assessments for a 25 particular plant that it were a 50-year ters, x number c- .) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
42 1 of effluents would be released, and you are now talking 2 about x plus something, tha t is one situation. If you ( 3 are only talking about if I divided x by 40, that would 4 be so much this year, and this year I am proposing to do 5 2-1/2 times that but my 40-year average is going to be -l 6 ' roughly the same, then that is an entirely different set ? of circumstances. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE Ed, running through 9 this, running through this list, where would you come 10 out on somathing like THI venting? 11 ER. CASE: I don't think it fits number 9, and 12 not because of special considerations, either. t 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay, that is, I 14 think -- 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 You say there may be 16 some discussion from the floor? 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE I will have to go 18 back and look and see. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You could go back and 20 do that. 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: To see if when the 2 22 bill was considered, the conference report was a 23 considered by the Sena te, see if there was some floor i 24 discussion of that particular issue and whether that 25 phrase in the conference report was intended'to indicate e C / =_ ALDERSoft REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345 [ I
s 43 1 tha t in future TMI-type situations, that th at would mean 2 that this authority would not be available, that you 3 would automatically determine that it was a significant {' 4 hazards consideration. But I seem to recall there might 5 have.been something like that. 6 MR. CUNNINGHAMs We will go back and look at 7 that. 8 COMMISSIONEB ASSELSTINE4 That covers mine. 9 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay. If you go out in to final, then at some other later point you would be what, 11 coming along and modifying some of these provisions, 12 which are then later picked up under the Sholly 13 provisions? 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM4 The only real question 15 related to Sholly is whether you make enough significant 16 hazards consideration determinations and every case as a 17 separate step or do you follow our proposal, which is to 18 pre-notice an opportunity for hearing at the sam time 19 as an opportunity for comment as te whether or not there 20 is a significant hazards considerations. 'If you get no 21 request.for hearing, there is no need for a significant 22 hazards consideration, so you don't make it. So we have 23 the language on page 27, depending on which of the p 24 Sholly reports you go with. 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The phrase, "The ,7. 3 ALDERSON R2 PORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 44 ( 1 Cosaission has found no significant hazards 2 consideration has been applied for and the Commission may dispense with such notice. -{- ~ ' ~ 4' HR. CUNNINGHAHa That is on page 26. Mr. 5 Olmstead and I debated for about an hour last night. S Bill, do you want to address-that? 7 [ Laughter] 8 HR. OLMSTEADa There are getting to be so many 9 different types of hearings and so many different types to of notices under Section 1.89, it is difficult for me to 11 explain this, but you are required by the Sholly 12 amendment to give a particular kind of notice. It is 13 not a notice of hearing, it is a notice of intent to 14 issue a no-significant-hazards consideration. You also,- _ 15 if someone requests a hearing pursaant to an opportunity 16 for hearing, you are required then to issue a notice of 17 hearing. 18 Now, those rules have not changed at all. 19 This rule is in our rules currently and has been held to 4 20 conform wholly -- 21 00MHISSIONER AHEA RNEa I understand that. I'm 22 just asking, if we replace the Sholly regulations -- 23 MR. OLHSTEAD: It is not necessary. What I (- convinced Mr. Cunningham of last night was that if we 24 25 got significant comment 'to that ef fect on the Sholly ~.; l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
45 f's 1 rule, then we could make that procedural change before 2 ve finalized it. But it is not as a matter of law 3 required to change this section, and if I got started {}' 4 making all those changes, I think there were some other 5 provisions of the rule that would also be impacted '6 because we implemented 1.89 in a number of places, in 7 1.82. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE You are saying that the 9 only reason you might make the changes are for 10 clarification? 11 MR.- OLMSTEAD: I think that in all of the 12 revisions that are floa ting around for Part 2, that it 13 is certainly not ill-advised for us to consider making 14 some changes in that regard, but I don't know that it is 15 necessary in this packace. 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is essentially 17 because you are providing the notics provision to deal 18 with the Sholly amendment as part of Part 50. s s 19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: This is part of Part 50. ~ COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The one I read from is 20 21 Part 50. 22 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. (<.- 24 MR. OLMSTEAD: This is 50.58. ~ 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, '400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
46 .c (,_ 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My question is, if we 2 go down the Sholly route, would you then want to go back I .(' 3 later and modif y this language, which is also Part 507 4 I guess you say that non-employers should stay out -- 5 (Laughter] 6 MR. CUNNINGHAMs It should be understood that 7 it is the public that has to use these regulations. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa You have a statement 9 that says the Commission finds that if no significant 10 hazard consideration is presented by an amendment to an 11 ' operating license, it may dispense with such notice' of 12 publication. It says if we conclude there are no 13 significant hazards, we don't have to notice anything; -( 14 we just go on. 15 MR. OLMSTEADs We don't have to notice a 16 hearing, that 's true, and that is the "such notice." 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The question is what is the 18 definition of "such notice." What might be advisable 19 when ve.get to a final rule on Sholly to make a 20 conforming change is in this section. e 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Yes. 22 COMMISSIONEB AHEARNE: Marty, do you have any 23. questions or comments on that? [5' '4" 24 MR. MALSCHa We are still looking at it. Wha t 25 we were doing this morning was trying to work through T'. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 e-mu m -e
14 7 1 the examples and'see how they fit the standards, and we 2 were having a hard time. I was sort of comfortable with ^ 3 the examples but I still want to see how they fit { 4 together. In particular we couldn 't see how example 9 5 on effluents and radiation fit into any of the standards 6 in 1, 2 or 3. I just raise the issue. 7 MR. CASES Say that one again? 8 MR. HALSCH That was the one added regarding, 9 in response to the concern that we be especially 10 sensitive to the amendments that increase effluents and 11 radiation. I didn't spend more than three seconds on 12 it, but it wasn't obvious based on the three second 13 review how that fit in, and with regard to reracking, i 14 renewals, increased power levels. It may be that it 15 works out okay. It was just difficult to work it out in 16 the time that we had. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (', 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
48 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You are trying-to hide 2 tha t cla rity. 3 (laughter) {. 4 HR. MALSCH: The answer may very well be that 5 this is the best we can do. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is a high ideal to 7 strive for. 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Having gone through the two 9 easy ones, we now turn to the Sholly amendments proper. 10 The authorization bill provides that upon the finding of 11' a no-significant-hazards consideration being involved in 12 an amendment, we may iss a that amendment in advance of 13 any requested hearing. The way the Act is structured as 14 it is now, if we get.a hearing and we don't make.that 15 finding, we can't issue the license unless a hearing is 16 held first. 17 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: Say it again? 18 MR. CUNNINGHAN Unless we get a hearing 19 request, until we have these rules in place, we will 20 have no vehicle for issuing an amendment prior to 21 holding a hearing. When the rules are in place, which 22 the Act directs us to do within 90 days -- 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE There is an underlying f~ d.2 ' 24 issue which we had taken to the Supreme Court, which 25 unfortunately now is being made moot, but it was our G ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
49. 1 interpretation, was it not, that under the current lav 2 ve were authorized that if we had reache'd a significant ("S 3 hazard finding, to go ahead and issue the amendment? / g. 4 ER. CUNNINGHAHa That is under'the current 5 law, but this law became effective January 4 and says 6 you will not have the authority granted to you until you 7 get rules in-place. So it changes the law which we were 8 previously interpreting, and that, of course, is the 9 reason -- 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It cancels the previous 11 law. 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It supercedes it, yes. 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Supercedes it. I 14 NR. C.UNNINGHAM: Tha t is, of course, the 15 reason we are trying to get the rulemaking package down 16 to you promptly. Our 90-day timetable started runnAng 17 on August 4th -- I'm sorry, January 4th. 18 [ laughter] 19 Now the first approach -- well, let me 20 descra.a what the law required. It said upon making 21 this finding you could then issue the amendment in 22 advance of required hearing, but before making that 23 finding in final fora, you had to allow the opportunity (~i for public comment on the proposed finding of no x 24 25 significant hazards consideration and consult with the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
50 ~~r' 1 state. 2 Our first approach to draf ting im plem en ting 3 rules was to say that in every case we take a quick look . (]. 4, at a proposed amendment, make a proposed finding of 1 5 no-significant-hazards consideration, which,.as I said,. 6 is covered by 98 percent of the amendments, publish a 7 Fede ral Register notice, allow 30 days for comments, 8 have consultation procedures with the states, evaluate 9 the. comments and mak e the final determination, a process 10 which occupies some time, obviously, 30 to 60 days, and 11 in the Staff estimate based on 600 amendments a year -- 12 MR. CASES And additional professional staff 13 years. 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM We have structured an 15 alternative proposal which is the one we recommend for 16 the Commission's consideration. That is, first of all a 17 change in the rules to require an applicant submitting 18 an amendment request to include his analysis of whether 19 or not there is significant hazards consideration. That 20 could be adopted in either form. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Applicant does not do 22 that now? 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. ) P. (h
- 53. CASE:
He is not required to do that. 24-25 MR. CUNNINGHAMs They may do it strictly if f ) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- ^ - - ~ 51 o ) 1 they want the finding, but it-is not required now. That ~ 2 would be the first part of the package. The applicant 3 would make his argument and would also serve that upon -- (' "_ ) 4 MR. CASES Using, the standards in the 5 reg ula tion. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: Previously described. 7 (laughter] 8 MR._CUNNINGHAMs In" addition, he would serve a 9 copy of that-on the state official. We would have a 10 list of the appropriate state officials in each state. 11' ~ Then we would issue a notice in every case -- and' there 12 - would probably be a batch of these once a week or once a i 13 month -- of all the requests received of the preliminary 4 14 findings with regard to significant hazards 15 determinations and offer both an opportunity to comment 16 on that determination and an opportunity to request a 17 h ea ring. 18 If there were not-requests for a hearing, 19 which we posit would be the normal case, in the event it l 20 is truly trivial, then there would be no need for us to 21 make a final no hazards consideration finding because we 22 would have a proced ural "out" f rom having a hearing, in i 23 which case we would complete the safety review and, if [7 24 appropriate, issue the amendment. 25 And although there is an uncertainty, of
- f..,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
52 e 1 course, as to how many hearing requests vould be 2 received *, it is our judgmen t that that would probably ~ 3 result in an overall savings of resources. We estimate -4 -- NRR estimates about four to five -- ? 5 MR. CASEt Three to four. staff years per year to 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: 7 handle the same amendment load we have now. So a key 8 feature of our proposal is that we couple the notice of 9 opportunity for hearing with the request for a comment to on the no-signidcant-hazard consideration determination. 11 (Commissioner Gilinsky leaves the meeting at 12 3 :0 2 p.m.) 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In your estimate on how 14 much time it will take you, is your assumption that most 15 of these will not have people coming in and arguing that' therearesigngficanthazards? Are you assuming that 16 17 the licensees will say that 98 percent are insignifican t 18 and that the commenters will tend to agree with that? 19 ER. CASE: No, I think it's more likely we 20 won't get many comments on the subject. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So your assumption is 22 that you are not going to ar', times find yourself being 23 forced to reach a conclusion going through any kind of f.i G 24 detailed analysis? 25 HR. CASE: The only time I get to that is if ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
53 D 1 someone requests a hearing, and it would be only in 2 those cases that I would have to analyze the comments in 3 a more detailed analysis and write a final 4 determination, and I think those would_be few. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So that your estimate of-the staff years is based upon very few -- 6 7 3R. CASES Yes. Or more probably, the savings 8 in man-years is based on the fact that you don't have to 9 go through the full process with a few, although you to would have to do the preliminary process in all, in-both 11 approaches. But if eith'er approach engenders more 12 requests for hearing on those cases where there are 13 significant hazards consideration and actually having 14 the hearings, then that is where the manpower eater 15 really is. 16 MR. OLMSTEADs I think this judgment is being 17 made because we ;;:::: tha t those who a re going to 18 request a hearing under the Sholly legislation are going 19 to get notice of the amendment action anyway and they 20 are not the type of people who are going to be 21 unknowledgeable about the fact that whether we offer the 22 opportunity for hearing or not, that they certainly have-23 the right under 1.89 to request it. So that is what 24 leads to the judgment that you are not going to increase 25 by some large factor the number of hearing requests that 4 AI.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
54 /~ 1 you actually get. 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM Particularly when we assume 3 that not too many people are going to be interested in {} 4 an af ter-the-fact hearing af ter we complete the 5 no-significant-hazards consideration finding. That is 6 the principal feature of the proposal. It also 7 incorporates the statutory criteria for dispensino with 8 any opportunity for public comment and, if necessary, 9 consultation with the states in emergency situations. 10 ER. CASE: Or shortening. 11 MR. CUNNINGHAHa That is correct. The 12 criteria for emergency consideration are pretty 13 stringent beca use it requires, among other things, a 14 shutdown and de-rating of the facility, and the 15 applicant could not have foreseen the need for the 16 amendment on a more timely basis. 17 And finally, with regard to consultation with 18 the states, the proposed rules incorporate a specific 19 language of the statute again that this doesn't give the 20 state a right to delay the amendment or dela'y its 21 implementation. 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Did I read this 23 correctly that your contacts with the state lie pretty ( 24 auch toward the state and the assumption is if the state 25 is interested, they will contact us? C. / ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
55 o 'n' 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: They are notified twice, once 2 by their analysis-and once by providing the copy of the 3 Federal Register notice. I'm sure there would be a 4 cover letter that would say, if you are interested, let 5 as know. But in essence we have put it upon the state 6 to let us know if they want to discuss a particular 7 thing. 8 COEHISSIONER AHEARNEs The assumption is if we 9 don 't hear, it is not a negative opinion? 10 MR. CUNNINGHANs Yes. 11 C08HISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that consistent 12 with the first sentence of number 4, page 29, that says I recognize you have the other two elements. You sa y 13 14 the Commission will make a good faith attempt to consult 15 with the state before it issues a license amendment 16 involving no-significan t-hazard s considerations. That 17 doesn't involve one more contact or attempt to contact 18 prior to issuance of the amendment? 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The position I would take is 20 if you sent them the Federal Register notice inviting 21 them to comment oc cespond, that is a good faith attempt 22 at consultation. This may be a matter we will get 23 comment upon, and I don't think the incremental burden 24 of us picking up the phone one more time 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: We are not saying we /~ (;;>> ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
a 56 o [; 1 are issuing the amendment. We just wanted to know if 2 you had any comments. . {} 3 ER. CUNNINGHAMs Again I think there is an 4 assumption here that given the fact that the majority of .5 the amendments are truly minor, that the states might be 6 just as happy if we weren't ringing the phones two or 7 three times a month. If that is wrong and we hear a 8 comment to that effect, then we would change the process 9 in which we contact them. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there any other 11 comment? 12 MR. CUNYINGHANs No, that's the outline of the 13 package. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jim ? 15 COHNISSIONER ASSELSIINE: I guess that was the 16 one question I really had, whether there should be that 17 one other step in there on the consultation with the 18 sta tes, which seemed to be perhaps just a bit more like \\ 19 consultation rather than providing an opportunity for 20 comment. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess I only had a 22 few other minor questions. 23 Under the regulatory analysis, which is C 24, Ed, I wonder if you could explain what was ~ 25 meant by the last sentence? (? ;,. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, Ci3) VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s 57 ( >> 1 MR. CASE Could you read it to ae? 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:- It says, "The Office of 3 Nuclear Reactor Regulation is already using these (]Y 4 standards but not all of the examples listed in the 5 preamble of the final rule. " 6 MR. CASE Well, certainly that is a 7 significant incressa in ef fluants, which is not one we 8 are using now. 9 ER. CUNNINGHAMa And rerack. 10 MR. CASES I don 't know of any reracks where 11 we haven't f ound significant hazards. But in any event, 12 I think when that was written there were perhaps another 13 couple of new examples that didn't quite ma ke it. 14 [Laughterl 15 HR. OLMSTEAD: We always do what the client 16 wants. 17 COHNISSIONER AHEABNE: I will pass on that. 18 [Laughteri 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay. Then on page 2, 20, it says with respect to Comaent C -- I 21 didn't really follow your response. 22 MR CUNNINGHAMs I will have to read that. 23 [ Pause] .<T 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think I will ask Tom Dorian 25 if he can comment on that. k) a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. it: 58 ) 1 MR. DORIANs. Frankly, I don't remember. This 2 goes back to a comment analysis we did at the time right 3 after we put out the proposed rule. -- { 4 MR. CUNNINGHAN: We can get back to you on-5 that. 6 COMMISSIONI3 AHEARNE: Let me just make a +. 7
- point, There is someone just slightly familiar with 8
this area and someone more familiar with this area and ~ 9 someone supposedly very familiar with this area. This -10 is something that the public is supposed to be able to 11 look at and understand the response? We can't. 12 HR. CUNNINGHAM* Well, it is something we 13 could change. We'will have to go back to the original- ~ . 14 comment letter and be more clear in our response. 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you have anything 16 else, Jim? 17 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No. 18 COBHISSIONER AHEARNE Marty? 19 HR. MALSCMa Is it possib'le, Guy, to notice 20 all amendments but then only pre-notice significant 21 hazards consideration evaluations in the event a hearing zt request is received? In your proposal you are 23 - pre-noticing all. You are pre-noticing a significant b 24 hazards consideration determina tion of some preliminary 25 -sort. They are all amendments. Is it possible to go b1 's ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
r I 59 ('s 1 back still another step and not even publish a proposed 2 no-significant-haza rds consideration situation in which .1s 3 no request for hearing is received? k_ 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The proposed 5 no-significant-hazards consideration, we haven't invited 6 comment on it so you haven't applied Sholly. In the 7 event you get a hearing request, then you are going to 8 have to start noticing at that step. Our intent was to 9 sa v a time by issuing a dual notice up front in each 10 case, and we would get both comments on both a 11 no-significant-hazards consideration and on the hearing. 12 MR. CASE: I think his question is more like 13 in a preliminary view, do you think it is a significant 14 hazards consideration; why go through the rest of it. 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There is no need to. In tha t 16 case you just issue a notice for hearing. 17 MR. MALSCH: The other question is, 18 suppose -- your proposal, I gather, is to make a 19 pro posed or preliminary no-significant-haza rds 20 consideration determination in all cases. 21 MB. CUNNINGHAM: No. We make a preliminary a the question of significant hazards 22 finding s 23 con side ra tio n. In most cases there will be no 24 significant hazards. 25 MB. MALSCH: Right, but at least you make a ALDERSoN REPoRilNG COMPANY,INC, 4Co VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
c
- (
60 ., ~. ( 1 preliminary 2 MB. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct. M'- 3 MR. MALSCHa Is it possible to avo'id even v 4 doing that and only making that determination in the 5 event you have received a hearing request? In other 6 words, pre-notice for hearing all amendments? 7-MR. OLMSTEAD: The reason we didn 't do 8 that -- we did consider that. There was quita a bit of 9 discussion about it. But the reason we didn't do that 10 is because of the stringent emergency criteria. If you 11 don't do it right up front as quickly as you get the 12 amendment, you can run the risk that the amendment will 13 be needed before you leave the notice requirements on 14 the criteria and you wouldn't be able to find that it 15 was an emergency situation because you dallied around 16 for a couple of months before you got around to making 17 that finding. 18 'M R. MALSCH: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right. There are 20 some items that you are going to try to do some more 21 work on, this being one of them? 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There are points raised today 23 which we will look at. j;. _/ 24 CONMISSIONER AHEABNE: Very good. Thank you. 25 (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the meeting was (7; ' '. ) ALDERSON REPORTsNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.,e 3 ~ b*. -61 j.
- . O a
~ E_ 7 l1-concluded.1-- p 2~ lG 8^ . 4 _- 5 -6 7 8 9 F 10 -11 l- . 12 13 g . i . 14 15 e L: -16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 23 [.- Vi> 24 - 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 664 2348 s
i \\ s f NUCLIAR uw1*CICE CDMMISSICN .s '3 'This La to cartify that the actached proceedings befors the ,.a., ,[' D b.. 2#12 the.2&tter Cf: PUBLIC MEETING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAN 97-415 l Date Cf Pt*Cceeding: January 18, 1983 Docket Ifumber: Place of Freceeding: washincton, D.C. ucre held as herei Segenes, agg ggge gg$, $, gg, ,*,L* . _ a n s e._,_,,_o therect for the file er ete cegg:gissten, Jane N. Beach Offtetal Keporter (Typed) g. ~ 0 icial Reporte.- (signaccre) 4 e -4.,- (2) 'B s,
,NMD$['".,'7lc': fiff.Q.]Ji.{s;@,'UOh'iJ.hf $QMg [g h'N;.yi f.M.,hWE'll l ',a i.e,u a .I ? j , 't
- ~
~5 #.C %m; g M '%. J
- m. A.Mq?ev.',Y.l m A m;&%'% p4sM #fsA.;$.p; w.[h\\
i 'J;f M t
- A g w y; 7. q.x. g. q ; w y w
- - n.;,,
W e. .u.,. .r. w w. w.jui m.m , : M e,p y., e :q. y.. :...oef ' :, s W.... T?%yi s O.%;qg,qr. : :@@M; r. ,w,y.~. m TRXS;, Sd;iPT 75Ds/le ..m er 1 .W. v .w n. - a; c.m . 9 m.,.r...h;. r.M( e,- ,5, &@M ...c.3 % Q. ;;. %k7.. -,. q. 4. p :
- : L %:a L t s:.Q : :,s. '
.. ; s..,,
- W @. y e *,s,. N N.s jl.' q..,.. W R R;.,;,u
- ..;',( 2EEEilSG$g %
..(g,...,:y.3B.EEORE@ ,..f.. N ..,m, N ~. - g, y ' $t.C!! R W Q
- 9..,
. [* s3 W.,s 4 y :g~g. g.., 8 r .,; y ~ 4 ).- J.- { L l9 1 4
- 4. -
y o NUCLEARTREGULATORItCOMZ1ISSIONg. Tm e 91 M g'.44&,q j Ea. Wqu u, pm y'%.p e 'y "y.;- fhy'"pyyea
- e. g.i:~-
WN. be ' m*ftlOW9,pWWMii
- L4
. a,m. Qw ? k ThJ(.;Q.
- 9
, bid .~ 2 l ,iQ
- *d i;fR.hp.Q2 3I D M K =:.$:c f,h N R $ Q '. W ydi$idi k E M N F N N.Nr n $y 1
M%ng;%v5SW&.ee.0'!b&@l.+&q g mM ^ WMMbMN$$WFF Nh'M &g.,-m:nO5:p, i .1&dK4 $;4M76d %dM
- rg&p' a?A a%
< wakg wpm .m WDKTsGASEiNOPin@{EADN 5 '..EP""I d""*, N$ WiM*?P %" d w $ $W Sy& WifphBhoM Ri W 7 M. x $8,. e. MN.UGLEMENTATIO..OEJUBLICdAW197-41SW g*e-
- t
- pY @@FW6dfMME92 8h/ berg 3
T$@5%:$@.vMi@. PLACEwemasewo c@59.WW@QF#M$5 59.m!M-WW _}- w DATE 3a=aq 18, 1983 5 .,. 'U.$. k NN,hM*D'AMdbi dM .. < qa:~. ~ s %:;,W-M,.:..yc...n. :.. Na@f@$,sn$ .c $$,w$.v+~$,.:f $r PAGEST ,ye.
- h?
<'.r-a v~w - -.,.s.t( .w ,.r c. ;,.: n,4 qe c-n+ m. .m .u - z. 7w .. ~;; ' s;, - .:u.:~~; m. 3.(g f 3 u,::: m.q [..; j.y g.:: 3 4; 4..;n%Q?. m ^:;y.%.... : ,: e;:n G J' i;.+ 3f;.. p .qy.:p ^; -8,. ~ '*:.?y,ysQ - k b Mb ( $hh k f: J)b.w%9x -- s+ ..u p% .J i - ysidn u &f ? ~ N?W % Aw&:. 4%=nw bs;;;.$- '- Ji +. z rgyyW ' u f( h~ 0 hf G <% { }g : g 4c ) 4ff >f k,y ikIh 4'. 4 tho' 4% t. 4
- )
a 1 1 i 3 4.C . W n y. w-2 sh' .Yh 5.i? M.7spgpc *- k khl sw.f';. 4 j A y . g 202)L62if,,93.0,&q. M"te gp" "w *.m ca s,o,g3 A 9 t + e V~*- . gt:g i - e c. u$j/~446 FIRST STREET N.W.; egg 4, g,f, g~p p.g .g/M.., f f.j q.yg g-k~ c.,r c- ?y. j,P g .c: WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 < a.. ~ n.. g
- f..
r
s-d X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 2 NUCLEAR FCOULATORY COMMISSION .3 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 05 IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 97-415 -6 ^ 7 Muclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 8 1717 H S treet, N. W. Washington, D. C. 9 Tuesday, January 18,.1983 10 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at '11 2:01 p.m. 12 CORMISSIONERS PRESENT: 13 JOHN AREARNE, Commissioner 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 15 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 16 STAFF-AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: 17 S. CHILK M. MALSCH 18 W. DIRCKS G. CUNNINGHAM 19 E. CASE W. OLMSTEAD 20 D. RATHBUN 21 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS. 22 I. DORIAN 23 / 24 25 _,_Yi # Gl@l)"/I OPP AtocaSou negaariuG coupauv. iuc. _. 400 VlaGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (20p 554-2345
e o v.
- t. y t )
r,, DISCLAIMER This is. an ' unofficial' transcript of a meeting of the United States
- Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on January 18,.1983 in the Cocmissi'on's offices. at 1717 H Street, N.
W., Wasn1ngton, D. C. The meeting uas open to public attendance and observation. Tais transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. l The transcHpt is intended solely for general informationaT purposes. As. provided by 10 CFR 9'.103, it is not part of the forinal or infomal record of decision of the matters disc:.:ssed. Expressiens of opinion in ..thir. transcript do not necessariTy ntflect finai determinations or ~ ~beTief'. No pleading or other paper may be filed wittr the Comission in s [ any proceeding as the res' ult of or addressed to any'statemeist or argument
- contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
i j O o A-i , bj .a*
2 ( + t pc 1 EE2cIERIEEE 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE (presiding): The-2 00 Q .3 o' clock meeting is about to start. The Commission first 4 has to vote the following vote on the briefing on 5 implementation of Public Law 97-415. We need to vote to 6 hold on less than one week's notice. All in favor say 7 -aye. 8 (A chorus of ayes.) 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Opposed? 10 (No response.) 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right. This 12 afternoon we hear from the Staff who has sent us up a. a 13 fairly large paper discussing some of the regulations 14 they propose we put out for comment and one that will be 15 put out in final form to implement the various 16 provisions recently passed by the Congress. 17 Tom? Jim? 18 (No response.) 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Bill? 20 MR. DIRCKSs It's difficult to talk about 21 this, since one of the authors of the amendment is 22 sitting at the table. 23 (laughter.) -(O 24 COMMISSIONER AREARNE, We can always ask him 25 about his comments. ..e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 ~.
r 3 .c 15 t .A 'N' 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I'm looking at this 2 with a different perspective. [{} 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. DIRCKS: I thought you would be. 4 5-(Laughter.) 6-MR. DIRCKSs I thought it would be better if I 7 - dropped ' ont of the process at an early stage and let the 8 legal sections take it up. Guy Cunningham is here and-9 - T he vill go through.it. I think there are resource 10 impacts in this area when we get to the Sholly amendment 11 and we'd like to talk about tha t. But first I'.11 let 12 Guy pick up on the various rule changes and the n ve can - 13 come back to the resource requirements. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Is it correct that what 4
- 15. you are going to do today is try to walk us through this 16 paper?
17 NB. DIRCKSs Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE We do not -- unless 19 there is an overriding sense of urgency on the part of 20 ny colleagues, I don't think we intend to try to ta k e 21 this to a vote. It's just a briefing at the present 22 time. 23 MR. DIRCKSs It's a briefing to get you ya 24 through it and we thought the sooner we got down here 'D 25 with it the better, because we do have the time f ).s W ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
a-4 t ,y i 1 ' requirements in the statute to move on it. - 2 . Guy?, f7) 3 MR. CUNNINGHAH4 Okay. The package has three \\:: 4 -- separate rulemaking proposalsa dealing first with 5 temporary operating licesses pursuant to the new Section 6.192 of the Atomic Energy ' Acts secondly, a final rule 7 dealing with the criteria for making the no significant ~ hazards consideration determination. That rule was 8 9 originally published in proposed form, I believe it was, 10 in Earch 1980. Then third and~probably most complex are I 11 the proposed rules to implement the Sholly amendment. 12 I would proposs, I think, to go through first 4 13 of all the two simpler ones, the temporary operating t 14 license and the criteria, and then devote the major part 15 of our time to the Sholly amendment at the end. 16 The tamporary operating license authority was 17 granted to the Commission in the authorization bill for 4 18 1982 and '83 and expires on December 31st.of this. year. 19 It authorizes the Commission, upon the request of an 20 applicant f or an operating license, to grant interia 21 operating authority, first at a five percent power level 22 and later, upon application, at higher power levels, 23 upon satisf action of the Consission that all the [ 24 required safety criteria have been met. 25 In particular a prerequisite for issuance of i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. . -.. 00 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554;2346 4
5 t 1 the interim operating authority is that the ACRS report i 2 has been issued, the Staff's SER and the supplemental (' 3 SER which responds to the ACES report, the final 4 environmental statement, and the appropriate emergency 5 plan. 6 The authority was' requested by the Commission 7 following Three Mile Island as a temporary solution to a 8 temporary problem, and the Committee report, the 9 conference report, makes it clear that the Congress 10 intends that this authority be used only sparingly; but 11 that it is intended to take care of the problem of any 12 so-called impacted plants, which were the consideration 13 that prompted the sending up of the bill' to begin with 14 The Commission had such authority earlier, 15 which expired in 1972. The new Section 192 very closely 16 parallels the early au t horit y, and for that reason the 17 regulations that we have put in this package very 18 closely track the ones that we re published and effective 19 in final form in the earlier 1970's. Essentially, they 20 track the statute in detail, just saying that the 21 documents have to be completed and in evidence and then 22 the applicant on a motion supported by affidavit can 23 req ue st the interim operating authority. 24 The statute provides that the Commission 25 should consider responsive affidavits or statements. Or a ALDERSON REPORTIN3 COMPANY,INC. 400 VmGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
o 6 t m ) g 1 The regulations provide for that opportunity. And then 2 the Commission, without the necessity for completing the IY 3 operating license hearing can iIf it chooses issue the 4 interim operating authority, as I said first at five 5 percent and then later at a higher power level. I 6 That in essence is the temporary operating 7 license authority part of the package. Unless there are 8 questions, I will nove on to the significant hazards 9 consideration. 10 COBBISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do you want to do 11 question's on each individual section? 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think that would be 13 easier, particularly since this is quite different. i 1 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I had just two l 15 questions on the temporary operating license 16 pro visions. One was on page 8 of the supplementary 17 information section of'the proposed rule. At the top of I 18 page 8 you note that the requirements of 189a do not 19 apply to the issuance of a temporary operating license, 20 but you do say -- you say, "Thus, the legislation 21 authorites the Commission to use procedures other than 22 formal adjudicatory procedures in issuing a temporary 23 operating license. In this regard, the Commission will 24 develop informal procedures case-by-case to resolve 25 particular issues as they arise." fj ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, _ MMCRTmo NIL Ete_ er$MR&MM OR KGF#3 dM DM
t 7 + = e 1 I guess the question I had vas what additional } 2 procedures other than what is included here do you ff 3 envision as possibly being necessary? v-E 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, what we have put in the i 5 rule, of course,. is the opportunity or the requirement 6 for an affidavit f rom the applicant and the opportunity 7 for the public to. respond. l l 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEa Right. t F 9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There are no further E 10 requirements stated. The Commission could just tak e 11 those, delibedate, and issue a decision. = t j 12 But it could, if it chose, have a public 13 meeting like this one and invite the applicant and the 14 commenters to address them. But we've specifically lef t E i 15 that for a case-by-case developmen t. t f 16 COMMISSIONER ASSElSTINE: But at least what is E [ 17 in here in your view would satisfy at least what is L h 18 required, which is simply the submission of affidavits 19 and the opportunity for comment? r e 20 MR. CUNNING 3AM: That is right. That creates i 21 the opportunity for a written record. l 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So this would simply l 23 allow as a discretionary matter by the Commission some k 24 additional step if the Commission chose to do that on a ~ e b 25 case-by-case basis? l ?.~' I I b b ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345
5 8 ~ r i .p. 1 MB. CUNNINGHAM That's correct. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The next question I 2_ /S 3 had was on page 11, the last bulleted item on the pages ( . 4 "Section 192 provides that the Commission's authority to 5 issue new temporary operating licenses shall expire on 6 December 31, 1983, thus these regulations would expire 7 on that date." 8 It is clear, is it not,_from the legislation 9 that a temporary operating license could be issued any 10 time up to or through December 31st that'vould remain in 11 effect for some period of time beyond December 31st, f 12 1983? 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That is clear. - 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is it clear from the 15 regulations? 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, I guess that's 17 what I'm wondering is whether -- 18 COMMISSIONER,AHEARNE: It wasn't to me. \\ 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. The question I ~ the same one that the Chairman had 20 had in my mind was 21 raised. 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm not sure that the 23 regulation has to be changed. It might be advisable to 24 put that in the supplementary information. We could 25 expand and make that clear. _ g. L ',.,i 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,.NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 dO2) 554-2345 w w ,f--e
o t 9 t _(~ COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Somewhere in there, 1 2 because I did have that same question. It_vasn't clear (} 3 what happened to all the licenses that might be out. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If they were issued by 5 December 31st, they would remain in effect according to 6 'the terms the Commission had originally set. 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And the expiration 8 of our regulations as of December 31st, 1983, vo~uld not ~ 9 have any negative impact on that. o 10 MR. CUNNINGHAMs No, because the regulations 11 only deal with the matter of issuance of the license. 12 The license would remain in effect on its own terms. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: They also deal with 14 amendments, don't they? 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Excuse me? 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Don't they deal also 17 though with amendments to a temporary operating 18 license? 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: You can amend a TOL to raise 20 the power level, for example, but again I don't believe 21 you could do that after December 31st. 22 MR. MALSCHs They also relate for example 23 suspending a temporary, operating license. If the p, 24 applicant is processing the application with due 25 diligence, that requirement would be to apply presumably A, \\/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, /RELt2TREWIY\\ /FTtdjZL tM90dN@T@N, D.@. 8QE4. (8E2) 554 2345
o ~ -jo 4 i 1 throughout the life of the temporary licensing, but that.would be beyond December 31st, 1983. You wouldn't want 4 -{[ 3 that authority to lapse. 4 HR. CUNNINGHAM: I would think we would 5 pr.r bably still have that authority under other. sections 6 of the Act, but it may be that we should take a look at 7 that. 8 COMNISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 I'm not sure that I 9 fully-agree with your other statement, Guy, that if you 10 had a temporary operating license, for example that vas 11 issued in Noveaber of 1983 with the five percent power 12 level.a t the original level, why couldn't someone amend 13 that to authorize operation'at a higher than five r 14 percent level after December '83, since that would be in 15 effect an amendment to the license that was issued prior P 16 to the statutory deadline. 17 MR. CUMNINGHAH4 My impression had been that 18 our authority to issue licenses is an authority to issue 19 amendments as well, and that the Act says that it 20 expires on December 31st. But we!d certainly be villing 21 to look more closely at that question. 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEa Okay. I wasn't sure that it 23 was tha t clear. I had the sense that if you got in 7 w 24 under the wire tha t at least for that facility you would 25 be okay. But I guess that is the other question I would i ALDERSoH REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~ -11 .i 1 raise. That covers mine. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Vic? ~3~ . COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: For myself, I don't {}. } -4 have any dif ficulty with the rule. But I' don't think I 5-like the background section, which gets into the 61 question of whether it looked like. there were going to 7 -be delays or there weren't going to be delays, and I 8 would suggest either shortening that, saying "the rule 9 reflects the legislation which passed." 10 MB. CUNNINGHANs Well, I understand your 11 point. The reason it was drafted that way is.that was ~ 12 ess entially the case that the Commission made when it 13 requested the legislation. ( 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it limited 15 itself to the low power phase. I. guess I just don't 16 think there is a need to go into all of the ins and outs 17 of that, or else it needs to be, I think, more neutrally 18 worded. I have some minor changes I would make if you 19 vere going to retain it, although I would prefer'to 20 simply shorten it. I can give you that separately. 21 MR. CUNNINGH AM s We would certainly be pleased 22 to see your suggested word changes, and if any other 23 Commissioners have any suggestions. .g L 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would have no probles 25 with some slight word changes. It's only a pa ra gra ph () l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
12-(.. 1 we're talking about, isn't it? 2 COHHISSIONER GIIINSKYa Well, it's about a f1 3 page and a half all together. 4 HR. CUNNINGHAHs Pages 2 to 4? 5 COHHISSIONER ASSELSTINE Host of the rest of 6 it is pretty well -- 7 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa I think the first 8 paragraph'is the only one that really talks about that. 9 The rest is a factual description of what the Commission 10 rules were. 11 COHHISSIONER ASSE1STINE: I even thought the 12 discussion of the delay issue was couched pretty much in 13 terms of a f actual recitation of the situation, at least 14 in 1980, the late 1980 time frame. But at that time it 15 did appear that delays would occur between the time of 16 construction -- 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it appeared to 18 some people it would. If you said "it was argued that," '19 it would be different. I just felt there was no need to 20 g o in to th a t. 21 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: What word changes would 22 you like? 23 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY: I guess I would argue 24 that if the basic notion is that you want to retain 25 this, I would say "It was a rgued tha t there was a 5) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~ 13 + t ((\\ E 1 possibility" 2 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Sure. ( 3 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY: "that there would 4 be delays." 5 HR. CUNNINGHAM: Right. We can certainly make 6 that change. And if any others are suggested to us, we ~ 7 will take them into account. 8 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE: That's just two of us 9 who are willing to do that so far. 10 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess I would like 11 to see the changes. 12 ,(Laughter.) 13 HR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, as you know, this paper 14 was prepared in order to get things bef ore the 15 Commission as quickly as possible. 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No one other than the Staff 18 had seen it in final form. We have consulted with GGC 19 parly on, b ut we would anticipa te that af ter this 20 briefing there will be other comments and we will have a 21 revision at some point in the very near future. 22 23 (; 24 25
- f. :,)-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
2. 14 s 7 1 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess only have two 2 questions. The first one was to what; plants do you now
- ['
3 expect'this might apply? 4 ER. CUNNINGHAHa I believe that the only 5 candidate is possibly Shoreham, but that case -- 6 MR. CASE: Two possible candidates 4 Shoreham 7 and possibly P(r.y. They are both unlikely but 8 possible, I would say. 9 COMNISSIONER AHEARNEs And the second question to. is -on page 18, under section (c), it says "The 11 Commission will not issue a temporary operating license 12 until all significant safety issues significant to the 13 facility in question have been resolved to its 14 satisfaction, taking into consideration the power level 15 and time period requested."
- 6 I was, I guess, somewhat puzzled by the 17 finality of that statement.
Isn't that equivalent to 18 the kind of a conclusion we would reach if we were about 19 to issue an operating license to the plant, "all 20 significant safety issues have been resolved to our 21 s a tisf a ctio n "'? 22 ER. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I think that has to 23 mean resolved to your satisfaction for the purpose of 24 temporary operating authority because there was also 25 language in here that makes it clear you cannot prejudge ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. di3) VIRGINIA AVEe S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4 15 1 the out'come. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARME: Perhaps then you could {' 3 put that phrase in. 4 HR. CUNNINGHAM: That11s definitely in here in 5 other places. That was specifically 6 . COMMISSIONER ASSE1STINE: I agree with that. 7 I think it would be useful to put that in. 8 HR. CUNNINGHAMs But it may be that they ought 9 to be in closer proximity. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Or at least 11 cross-r ef ere nced. 12 ER. M AISCH: Actually, you shouldn't have 13 standards like this in Part 2 anyway. The actual 14 standard for amendnent issuance is in Part 50, and 15 they've got the statutory language there. I wasn't sure 16 why this, or for that matter (d) needed to be in Part 2. 17 MR. CUNNINGHAH4 The short answer is-we had it 18 in there back in '72 and '73. We could do some 19 tin ke ring. It's not essential. You are right that the 20 standard is set forth in Part 50. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It could just be taken 22 out. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. f.L 24 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE: Again, tha t is two who 25 f eel th-t wa y. We are giving you lots of advice but a (?' v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
16 t. .g 1 -(Laughter.) ^ 2' MR. CUNNINGHAMs Not hearing any contrary - l' 3 advice, I will go with the two that I hear. 4 (Laughter.) 5 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE That sounds like:a good 8 approach. 7 Tom, do you have any? 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS 4 (Nods in the negative.) 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right, I guess 10 that's all. 11' Harty, did you have any more? 12 HR. HALSCH I ha d one peculiar issue. I 13 don't know what.to do about it. What would - happen in r 14 the situation in which a licen- ' read y had a c r current rules? 15 low-power 5-percent license undet 18 Would we have to require him to refile f or a temporary, 17 low-power license in order for him to go through the 18 actions of asking for a full-power temporary license? 19 We couldn't come up with a clear answer to that 20 question, so we're thinking about it. 21 COMMISSION ER AHEARNE: Did you have any 22 particular plant in mind? 23 MR. CASE It would be a possibility with 17 24 Shoreham because one might argue that they could get 25 their 5-percent license without off-site emergency b I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
17 1 planning and be going along swimmingly and then suddenly 2 run into a problem on off-site emergency planning.that /'U 3 would go beyond. I could see that possibility. U 4 MR. MALSCH: It also occurred to me that what 5 would happen say in Diablo if the record were reopened ? 6 I am not sure. It wasn't clear to me that the situation 7 would never arise, and if it did arise, I couldn't see a 8 clear route to avoid going through what looked to me 9 like an empty exercise of applying for a temporary 10 low-power license when they already had one. But I just ~ 11 offer it as a probles to think about. 12 MR. OLMSTEAD: You're talking about under this 13 statute -- 14 MR. MALSCH: Well, and the regulations. when they already had one 15 MR. OLMSTEADs 16 under 50.57(c)? 17 MR. MALSCHs Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: To take advantage of 19 this statute's provisten allowing them to keep cranking 20 up above 5 percent. 21 MR. OLMSTEAD: But tley're allowed to do that 22 under 50.57(c), too. 23 MR. MALSCH: True, but the question would be 4 24 suppose they have gotten a low-power license under 50.57 25 after holding a hearing on low power issues. Let's (*. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
4 18 'W. 1 suppose that the hearing on full-power issues were still 2 in progress and they wanted to obtain - a temporary (N 3 full-power license prior to completion of that hearing. 4 Would they have to go through the motions of also 5 applying for a temporary low-power license when.they 6 already had one just to be able'to avail themselves of 7 the opportunity of filing application for a temporary 8 full-power license? That doesn't seem to make any sense. 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jim, was this something to that came up? 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE No. ' 12 (Laughter.) 13 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE: Bill? 14 NR. CUNNINGHAB It's not one that we've 15 considered. We can give it some thought. This Act only 16 provides authority for amending incrementally licenses 17 issued under it. 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. I am af raid 19 the way it's structured you probably would have to go 20 through the exercise of getting a 5-percent temporary 21 operating license under the section. That's my 22 suspicion. 23 NE. MALSCH: We are looking at it to see / 24 whether there's a way around what would appear to be a 25 sort of a needless exercise. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2345
19 1 COMHISSIONER ASSELSTINEa Yes. I don't think 2 it's addressed by intent at all. The only question is i( ' 3 whether you're locked into that by the words of the 4 statute. 5 MR. CUNNINGHANa The next part of the package, 6 which is Enclosure 3, deals with the standards for 7 making a determination that a proposed OL amendment 8 involves no significant hazards consideration.- As I 9 men tioned, these rules were proposed in March of 1980, to and we have in this package a final notice of rulemaking. 11 There is a correction package which was 12 circulated today to make the rule conform to the 13 approach we have taken in implementing Sholly.
- Clearly, 14 it is important that final action not be taken on this 15 until we decide which var we are going to go on Sholly 18 so that the appropriate conforming language is in there.
17 The changes or the criteria apply only to 18 operating license amendments, not to construction peratt \\ 19 amendments. The legislation only applies to operatina ~ 20 licenses, and in f act I don 't believe we have ever r.ade 21 no-significant-hazard consideration findings with r egard 4 22 to construction permit amendments. 23 The no-significant-hazards consideration 24 finding is basically a procedural one. It deals with 25 the quectian of whether or not we notice in advance an ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
20 I' for hearing. The criteria for making that L opportunity 2 determination in the rule are essentially the same as (~ 3 tney ~ vere in the proposed rule. 4 .And there are'three criterias' whether there 5 'is a significant increase in probability or consequences 6-of'an accident previously evaluated; whether the 7 ' amendment would create the. possibility of an accident 1 8 different from those previously evaluated; and whether 9 it involves a significant reduction in the margin of 10 safety. 11 -If'any of those findings were met, then there-12 would be a significant-haza rds consideration. 13 . CORMISSION ER AREARNE : Does it also hold true 14 that if none of them are met that it is not a 15 significant hazard? 16 NR. CUNNINGHAM: I think-that's true. 17 Ed, would you agree? l 18 MR. CASE: Yes, I would agree. 4 19 MR'. CUNNINGHAMs Those are the only three 20 criteria which are spelled out in the rule. 21 The supplementary information gives -- on page 4 22 20 you will find the -- nine examples of amendments 4 23 which do involve significant-hazards consideration and 24 eig'ht examples that do not involve significant-hazards L 25 considerations. t'. , t; 4 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 - -...-.t.-.. ~.-,-- -_,,, -.
4 21 1 These criteria are essentially the same as 2 those -- in fact, they are the same as those applied by 3 NRR now. (" 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Given the answer you 5 just ga ve me, perhaps, Ed, you can explain to me why 6 reracking a spent-fuel storage pool, which one of those 7 three is it? 8 MR. CASES That was put in there because of 9 the Congress. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I was just told that it 11 has to meet one of those; if it doesn't, then it isn't. 12 And I don't think it was put in there because of the 13 Congress. Congress didn't tell us to do that. 14 MR. CASE: Yes, they did. 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM Yes. That was in the 16 Conference Report. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Was it in the 18 Conference Report? Or was it in the Senate Report? \\ 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I don't think it's in -- well, let's see, that's a good question. 20 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The paper doesn't quote 22 it as being in the Conference Report. The paper quotes 23 it as being in the Senate Report. 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs That's right; it 25 does. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 {
22 4 . (n, 1 MR. CASES Well, depending on the.raracking, I 2-could see {' 3 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE: This just.says "any 4 reracking." ~ 5 MR. CUNNINGHAMs I don't see it in the 6 Conference Report no w. I thought it was in th? 7 Conference Report, but it was clearly added there at the 8 instigation of the legislative process. 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Are we bound if it is a 10 Senate report but it doesn't get into the conference 11 report, are we bound by tha t b y regulation? ^ 12 .MR. MALSCH: I don't know how to answer that 13 question in the abstract. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: This is not the 15 abstract. 16 (Laughter.) 17 MR. MALSCH I haven't seen the rest of'the 18 legislative history. It would depend upon how importan t 19 that statement in the Senate report is in the overall 20 construction of the statute. If the statute is 21 ambiguous, and that is the only guidance we have, it 22 could be quite important to tak e tha t -into account. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think at the moment I X.,. 24 find a basic inconsistency. I think you would have to 25 add a number 4 on page 27. \\?, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, ' "" '"' ^ *" 5 *r * ** "'" ' "2 2 ' ' 2""'.224
- c 23.
1 (Laughter.) 2' MR. CASES If I were going to do it tha t way, 3 I would just add that particular example. {l 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Let me ask a question. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. I think I am 6 going to ask them to essentially go back and look at the 7 legislative history to see. At the moment it's iust of 8 interest._ 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs When you say involves to a significant consequence of an accident previously 11 evaluated, do you mean the step that is contemplated or 12 tha t it involves an issue which has the possibility of 13 significantly increasing the probability of consequence 14 of an accident previously evaluated? Is that clear? 15 MR. CUNNINGHAMs No. Clearly, the 16 considerati6n related to the amendment 17 MR. CASEa The operation of the facility.in 18 accordance with the proposed amendment. So when you 19 deal with the merits of the amendment itself -- 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs What concerns me here, 21 it seems to me that somewhere we ought to be dealing 22 with the importance of the problem, the safety 23 importance. cc g 24 MR. CUNNINGHAMs This specifically tells us to 25 separate the procedural issue from the merits. What (*3 ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
24 L. p these.critaria are intended to do is'to identify the i 2 types of actions which could involve, and if. there is ( 3 any accident consideration involved, then you have.to 4. find the significant-hazards consideration.- You-can 5 the n ~ evalua te -it on the merits : and' find it's okay and 6 approve it. 7 COEEISSIONER GILINSKY: I~ guess I don't follow 8 that. Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose:there 9 is a crack in a pipe of'some pressure vessel. If you 10 watch it carefully, you. vill always be able to catch it 11 ' bef ore it's a break. So you propose:an amendment for 12' increased surveillance. 13 No w, in view of the Staff, the NRC, that may 14, compensate f or the deficiencies or the safety problems,. 15 but it seems to se there may be -- it is a serious 16 saf ety problem which - has been addressed but may not have 17 been addressed satisfactorily. I guess I would say tha t 18 is something that involves a significant-hazards 19 consideration. 20 Is that the way you see it? Does that fit 21 with the definitions or not? 22 ER. CASE: I haven't rehearsed this. That's 23 not the way I see these words. If the Staff felt there (El-). ^~ 24 was a small increase in the probability of an accident, this did not involve a 25 it could say no sionificant ecs,;) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $64-2346
? 25 o n. El-1 significant-hazards consideration. 2 If on the other hand--it was a significant -. g 'x '3 increase, albeit scceptable, then you would find
- s.. -
4 significant hazard. So there is a difference between j 5 looking at the merits. l 6 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYs I am not sure.-I follow I 7 this. There is a safety probles which_is bing f. 8 compensated for by some steps in this case, increased 9' surveillance. And tha t is what is proposed for, say, 10 the next year of operation. Now,, some people may. feel 11 that that is not sufficient action, that you have to 12 replace the piece of pipe or whatever. l 13 ER. CUNNINGHAM4 That's the merits when you 14 say you do not think it is sufficient action. The 15 threshold procedural question isa Is there a potential 16 for a significant safety problem here? 17 COMNISSIONEB GILINSKYa Yoa're dealing with a 18 significant safety problem, you may feel you have dealt 19 satisfac'torily with it, but certainly the problem itself 20 is a significant problem. If it isn't a significant 21 problem to begin with, you wouldn't be talking about it. 22 MR. CUNNINGHAH4 But if it is a significant 23 problem that requires consideration of the accident g.. O 24 considerations, then it meets the requirement for a 25 significant-hazards consideration. .g ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
26 p' 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa That's wha: I am 2 asking about, whether this applies to the problem or the 3' solution. 4 MR. CONNINGHAHa To the problem. 5 HR. CASE: I am sorry, that's not the way I 6 read the innguage, Guy. 7 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: That's what I an 8 trying to get at. 9 MR. CASE: On page 27 it says, "... unless it 10 finds that operation of the facility in accordance with 11 the proposed amendment woulds (1) involve a significant 12 increase in the probability" 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Is that the language 14 of the law? 15 ER. CASE No, that's the regulation. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Oh, the final 17 regulation. Well, I guess I would tie it to the 18 problem, unless persuaded otherwise. 19 20 21 22 23 (. 24 25 , ~.. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
ze - 43 [L. - 1 tha t in future THI-type situations, that th at.vould mean s 1 . 2 :that this authority would not be available, that you N 3-would automatically determine that it was a significant 4-hazards considecation. But I seem to recall there might 5 have.been something like that.- 6 NR. CUNNINGHANs We will go'back and look at 7 that. 8 COMEISSIONEB ASSELSTINEa That covers mine.- 9 COREISSIONER_AHEARNE: Okay. If you go out in 10 final, then at some other later point you would be what, 11 coming along and modifying; some of these provisions, i 12 which are then later picke'i"tp under the Sholly 13 provisions? - 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM The only real question 15 reisted to Sholly is whether you make enough significant 16 hetzards consideration detersinations and every case as a 17 separate step or do you follow our proposal, which is to 18 pre-notice an opportunity for hearing at the same time as an opportunity for comment as to whether or nNt there 19 is a significant fiazards considerations. 'If you get no .- 20 21 request for hearing, there is no need f or a significant 22 hazards consideration, so you don't make it. So we have 23 the language on page 27, depending on which of the 24 Sholly reports you go with. 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The phrase, "The f% ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) $64 2346 m .... _ _...... _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. _ ~ _. ... ~. - -.. .. ~..
44 4 1 Commission has found no significant hazards 2 consideration has been applied for and the Cnemission 3-any dispense with such notice. ~ { 4 NR. CUNNINGHAMs That is on page 26. Mr. 5 Olmstead and I debated for about an hour last night. 6. Bill, do you want to address that? - 7 (Laughter] 8 MR. OLMSTEAD: There are getting to be so many 9.different types of hearings and so many different types 10 of notices under Section 1.89, it is difficult for me to 11 explain this, but you are required by the Sholly 12 amendment to give a particular kind of notice. It is 13 not a notice of hearing, it is a notice of intent to 14 issue a no-significant-hazards consideration. You also, 15 if someone requests a hearing pursuant to an opportunity 16 for hearing, you are required then to issue a notice of 17 hearing. 18 Now, those rules have not changed at all. 19 This rule is in our rules currently and has been held to e 20 conform wholly -- 1 21 COMMISSIONER AHEA RNE I understand that. I'm 22 just asking, if we replace the Sholly regulations -- 23 MR. OLMSTEADs It is not necessary. What I '.7 24 convinced Mr. Cunningham of last night was that if we 25 got significant comment to that ef fect on the Sholly (- j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345 ~. -_
r- -G 45 4 9 1 s % 1 rule, then we could make that procedural change before 2 ve finalized it. But it is not as a matter of law -r' 3 required to change this section, and if I got started -( 4 making all those changes, I think there were some other 5 provisions of the rule that would also be impacted 6 because ve implemented 1.89 in a num ber of places, in 7 1.82. 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 You are saying that the 9 only reason you might make the changes are for 10 clarification? 11 HR. OLMSTEAD: I think that in all of the 12 revisions that are floa ting around for Part 2, that it is certaI,aly not ill-advised for us to consider makino 13 14 some en1Me~s in that regard, but I don't know that it is 15 necessary in this package. 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is essentially 17 because you are providing the notice provision to deal 18 with the Sholly amendment as part of Part 50. s s 19 COMMISSIONFR ROBERTS 4 This is part of Part 50. 20 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE: The one I read from is ~ 21 Part 50. 22 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yas. 24 MR. OLMSTEAD: This is 50.58. 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Yes. -./ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, '400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2346
o 66 4 .n - ' i-1 COMMISSIONER-AHEARNE: 'Hy question is,.if ve 4 i 2 go down'the Sholly route, would you then vant to go.back' '/"' 3 later and modif y this. language, which is also'Part 507 L -: 4 I guess you say that non-employers should stay out - : 5 (Laughter] 6 HR. CUNNINGHAMs It should be understood that 7 it is the public that has to use these regulations. i 8 COHMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have a statement 9 that says the Commission finds that if no significant 10 hazard consideration is presented by an amendment to an 11 operating license, it may dispense with such no'tice~ of 12 publication. It says if we conclude there are no 13 significant hazards, ra don't have to notice anythings 14.ve just go on. 15 MR. OLMSTEAD: We don't have to notice a 16 hearing, that's true, and that is the. "such notice." 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The question is what is the 18 definition of "such notice." What might be advisable 19 when we get to a finil rule on Sholly to make a 20 conforming change is in this section. 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Marty, do you have any 23 questions or comments on that? 24 MR. MALSCH We are still looking a t it. Wha t 25 ve were doing this morning was trying to work through (~, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345 . -. -... -. _ ~,, . - - - -. - _,.. - ~. - -. -..
r f47 p g the c:amples and see how they fit the standards, and we 1 2 were having a hard' time. I was sort of comfortable-with 3-the examples but I still want to see how they fit {l 4 together. In particular we couldn 't see how example.9 5 on effluents and radiation fit into any of the standards 6 in 1, 2 or 3. I just raise the issue. 7 NR. CASE: Say that one again? 8 NR. HALSCHa That was the one added regarding, 9 'in response to the concern that we be especially to sensitive to the amendments that increase effluents and 11 radiation. I didn't spend more than three seconds on 12 it, but it wasn't obvious based on the three second 13 review how that fit in, and with regard to reracking, 1 14 renewals, increased power levels. It may be that it 15 works out okay. It was just difficult to work it out in 16-the tiaa that we had. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSoN AEPORUNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
48 1 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE: You are trying to hide 2 that clarity. f (^ 3 (laughterl w 4 HR. MALSCH: The answer may very well be that 5 this is the best we can do. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is a high ideal to 7 strite for. 8 ER. CUNNINGHAN: Having gone through the two 9 easy ones, we now turn to the Sholly' amendments proper. 10 The authorization bill provides that upon the finding of 11' a no-significant-hazards consideration being involved in 12 an amendment, we may issue that amendment in advance of 13 any requested hearing. The way the Act is structured as 14 it is now, if we get a hearing and we don't make that 15 finding, we can't issue the license unless a hearing is 16 held first. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Say it again? 18 MR. CUNNINGHAN4 Unless we get a hearing 19 request, until we have these rules in place, we vill 20 have no vehicle for issuing an amendment prior to 21 holding a hearing. When the rules are in place, which 22 the Act directs us to do within 90 days -- 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There is an underlying (- 24 issue which we had taken to the Supreme Court, which 25 unfortunately now is being made moot, but it was our .(. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
49 t 1-interpretation, was it not, that under the current law ~ 2 ve were authorized that if we had reached.a significant 3 hazard finding, to go ahead and issue the amendment? A.. 4 HR. CUNNINGHAM: That is under the current 5 law, but this law became effective January 4 and says 6 you will not have the authority granted to you until you 7 get rules in place. So it changes the law which we were 8 previously interpreting, and that, of course, is the 9 reason -- 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It cancels the previous 11 law. 12 MR. CUNNINGHAN: It supercedes it, yes. 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Supercedes it. 14 NR. CUNNINGHAM: That is, of course, the 15 reason we are trying to get the rulemaking package down 16 to you promptly. Our 90-day timetable started running 17 on August 4th -- I'm sorry, January 4th. 18 ILaughter) 19 Now the first approach -- well, let me 20 describe what the law required. It said upon making 21 this finding you could then issue the amendment in 22 advance of required hearing, but before making that 23 finding in final form, you had to allow the opportunity (~l, 24 for public comment on the proposed finding of no 25 significant hazards consideration and consult with the fm. 'r r' ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2345
t 50 ^,m 1 state. 2 Our first approach to draf ting im plem en ting 3 rules was to say that in every case we take a quick look C 4, at a proposed amendment, make a proposed finding of 5 no-significant-hazards consideration, which,.as I said, 6 is covered by 98 percent of the amendments, publish a 7 Federal Be71 ster notice, allow 30 days for comments, 8 have consultation procedures with the states, evaluate 9 the comments and make the final determination, a process 10 which occupies some time, obviously, 30 to 60 days, and 11 in the Staff estimate based on 600 amendments a year -- 12 MR. CASES And additional professional staff 13 years. 14 MR. CUNNINGHAMs We have structured an 1 15 alterestive proposal which is the one we recommend for 18 the C.-mission's consideration. That is, first of all a 17 changs in the rules to require an applicant submitting 18 an amendment request to include his analysis of whether 19 or not there is significant hazards consideration. That 20 could be adopted in either form. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Applicant does not do 22 tha t no w ? 23 ER, CUNNINGHAM: No. o 24 MR. CASE: He is not required to do that. 25 MR. CUNNINGHAMs They may do it strictly if 6 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
51 1 they wan t th'e finding, but it is not required now. That 2 would be the first part of the package. The applicant f( 3 would make his argument and would also serve that upon -- 4 MR. CASES Using the standards in the 5 reg ula tion. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Previously described. 7 (Laughter] ^ f 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: In addition, he would serve a 9 copy of that on the state official. We would have a l 10 list of the appropriate state officials in each state. 11 Than we would issue a notice in every case -- and' there 12 would probably be a batch of these once a week or onco a 13 month -- of all the requests received of the preliminary l 14 findings with regard to significant hazards 15 determinations and offer both an opportunity to comment i 16 on that determination and an opportunity to request a 17 hearing. 18 If there were not requests for a hearing, 19 which we posit would be the normal case, in the event it l 20 is truly trivial, then there would be no need for us to 21 make a final no hazards consideration finding because we 22 would have a proced ural "out" f rca having a hearing, in 23 which case we would complete the safety review and, if pU' 24 'a pp ro pria te, issue the amendment. 25 And although there is an uncertainty, of (R-t,;-y ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
52 i 1 course, as to how many hearing requests would be 2 received, it is our judgment that that would probably 3 result in an overall savings of resources. We estimate 4 -- NRR estimates about four to five -- ? 5 NR. CASES Three to four. staff years per year to 6 NR. CUWNINGHAM: 7 handle the same amendment load we have now. So a key 8 feature of our proposal is that we couple the notice of 9 opportunity for hearing with the request for a comment .10 on the no-significant-hazard consideration determination. 11 (Commissioner Gilinsky leaves the meeting at 12 3:02 p.m.) 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In your estimate on how 14 much time it will take you, is your assumption that most 15 of these will not have people coming in and arguing that 16 there are significant hazards? Are you assuming that 17 the licensees will say that 98-percent are insignifican t ~ 18 and that the commenters will tend to agree with that?. 19 HR. CASE: No, I think it's more likely we 20 von't get many comments on the subject. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So your assumption is 22 that you are not going to many times find yourself being 23 forced to reach a conclusion going through any kind of f< $. 24 detailed analysis? 25 MR. CASE: The only time I get to that is if \\e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
53 /^ 1 someone requests a hea ring, and it would be only in 2 those cases that I would have to analyze the comments in 3 a more detailed analysis and write a final q 4 determination, and I think those would be few. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So that your estimate 6 of the staff years is based upon very few -- 7 HR. CASES Yes. Or more probably, the savings 8 in man-years is based on the f act that you don't have to 9 go through the full process with a few, although you 10 would have to do the preliminary process in all, in both 11 approaches. But if either approach engenders more 12 requests for hearing on those cases where there are 13 significant hazards consideration and actually having 14 the hearings, then that is where the manpower eater 15 really is. 16 MR. OLMSTEADs I think this judgment is being 17 made because we assume tha t th o se who are going to 18 request a hearing under the Sholly legislation are going 10 to get notice of the amendment action anyway and they 20 are not the type of people who are going to be 21 unknowledgeable about the fact that whether we offer the 22 opportunity for hearing or not, that they certainly have 23 the right under 1.89 to request it. So that is what leads to the judgment that you are not going to increase 24 v-25 by some large factor the number of hearing requests that
- 2
'u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
54 1 you actually get. 2 NR. CUNNINGHANa , Particula rly when we assene f 3.that not too many people are going to be interested in l 1 '% 4 an af ter-the-fact hearing after we complete the 5 no-significant-hazards consideration finding. That is 6 the principal feature of the proposal. It also 7 incorporates the statutory criteria for dispensing with 4 8 any opportunity for public comment and, if necessary, 9 consultation with the states in emergency situations. 1 10 ER. CASES or shortening. 11 MB. CUNNINGHANs That is correct. The i 12 criteria for emergency consideration are pretty l 1 13 stringent because'it requires, among other things, a .] 14 shutdown and de-rating of the f acility, and the 15 applicant could not have foreseen the need for-the 16 amendment on a more timely basis. 17 And finally, with regard to consultation with f-16 th; states, the proposed rules incorporate a specific 19 language of the statute again that this doesn't-give the 20 sta te a right to delay the amendment or delay its 21 implementation. 1 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Did I read this 23 correctly that your contacts with the state lie pretty I 24 auch toward the state and the assumption is if the state 25 is interested, they will contact us? sj ALDERSON REPORTING -00MPANY, INC. '" ?aG'"'^ ^* 8"d^sNgogN. o;c. 2m24 (2o2) ss4-234s,.,
55 /* 1 MR. CUNNINGHAMs They are notified twice, once 2 by their analysis and once by providing the copy of the 3 Federal Register notice. I'm sure there would be a 4 cover letter that would say, if you.are interested, let 5 us know. But in essence we have put it upon the state. 6 to let us know if they want to discuss a particular 7 thing. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs The assumption is if we 9 don 't hear, it is not a nega tive opinion ? 10 MR. CUNNINGHAMs Yes. 11 CONHISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that consistent 12 with the first sentence of number u, page 29, that says 13 -- I recognize you have the other two elements. You sa y 7-- 14 the Commission will make a good faith attempt to consult 15 with the state before it issues a license amendment 16 involving no-significant-hazard s considerations. That 17 doesn't involve one more contact or attempt to contact 18 prior to issuance of the anendment? 19 MR. CUNNINGHAMs The position I would take is 20 if you sent them the Federal Register notice inviting 21 them to comment or r espond, that is a good f aith attempt 22 at consultation. This may be a matter we will get 23 comment upon, and I don't think the incremental burden ,7 n./ 24 of us picking up the phone one more time 25 COMMISSION ER ASSELSTINE: 'Je are not saying we -g 'j) ~ ALDERSoN REPORTING CoMPAt4Y,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2CJ24 (202) 554-2345
56 (~. 1 are issuing the amendment. We just wanted to know if 2 you_had any comments. 3 ER. CUNNINGHAMa Again I think there is an 4 assumption here that given the fact that the majority of 5 the amendments are truly minor, that the states might be 6 just as happy if we weren't ringing the phones two or 7 three times a month. If that is wrong and we hear a 8 comment to that effect, then we would change the process 9 in which we contact them. 4 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE Is there any other 11 comment? 12 MR. CUNNINGHAMs No, that's the outline of the 13 package. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa Jim ? 15 COHHISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess that was the 10 one question I really had, whether there should be that 17 one other step.in there on the consultation with the 18 sta tes, which seemed,to be perhaps just a bit more like \\ 19 consultation rather than providing an. opportunity for ~ 20 comment. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess I only had a 22 few other minor questions. 23 Under the regulatory analysis, which is f r1 i 's" 24, Ed, I wonder if you could explain what was 25 meant by the last sentence? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, _ qi(Q %33NIA AQ $We WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
9. 57 F k. 1 MR. CASE: Could you read it to me? 2 CONMISSIONER AHEARNE: It says, "The Office of 3 Nuclear Reactor Regulation is already using these ({v 4 standards. but not all of the examples listed in the 5 preamble of the final rule. " 6 ER. CASE Well, certainly that is a 7 significant incressa in af fluents, which is not one we 8 are using now. 9 HR. CUNNINGHAMa And rerack. 10 NR. CASES I don't know of any reracks where 11 we haven't found significant hazards. But in any event, 12 I think when that was written there were perhaps another 13 couple of new examples that didn't quite make it. 14 [Laughterl-15 HR. OLHSTEAD: We always do what the client 16 wants. 17 COMMISSIONER AREABNE: I will pass on that. 18 [ Laughter! 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay. Then on page 2, 20, it says with respect to Comment C -- I 21 didn't really follow your response. 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I will have to read that. 23 [ Pause] ] [J
- 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think I will ask Tom Dorian 25 if he can comment on that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
58 A' 1 MR. DORIANs Frankly, I don't remember. This i-2 goes back to a comment analysis we did at the -time right ) 3 after we put out the proposed rule. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We can get back to you on 5 that. 6 COMMISSION ER AHEARNE: Let me just make a 1 7 point. There is someone just slightly familiar with l l 8 this area and someone more familiar with this area and 9 som eone supposedly very f amiliar with this area. This L to is something that the public is supposed to be able to l 11 look at and understand the response? We can't. i 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, it is.something we 13 could change. We will have to go back to the original ( 14 comment letter and be more clear in our response. 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you have anything 16 else, Jim? 17 COHMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Marty? f 19 NB. MALSCH: Is it possib'le, Guy, to notice 20 all amendments but then only pre-notice significant 21 hazards consideration evaluations in the event a hearing 22 request is received? In your proposal you are 23 pre-noticing all. You are pre-noticing a significant (~' 24 hazards consideration determination of some preliminary 25 sort. They are all amendments. Is it possible to go [ } ALDERSoft REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
59 t rm 1 back still another step and not even publish a. proposed 1 ~ 2. no-significant-haza rds considera tion si tuation in which 3 no request for hearing is received? {'} 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The proposed 5 no-significant-hazards consideration, we haven't invited ~ 6 comment on it so you haven't applied Sholly. In the 7 event you get a hearing request, then you are going to 8 have to start noticing at that step. Our intent was to 9 save time by issuing a dual notice up front in each 10 case, and we would get both comments on both a 11 no-significant-hazards consideration and on the hearing. 12 MR. CASE: I think his question is more like 13 in a preliminary view, do you think it is a significant f 14 hazards consideration; why go through the rest of it. 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM4 There is no need to. In th a ' 16 case you just issue a notice for hearing. 17 MR. MALSCH: The other question is, 18 suppose -- your proposal, I gather, is to make a 19 proposed or preliminary no-significant-hazards 20 consideration determination in all cases. 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. We make a preliminary 22 finding on the question of significant hazards 23 consideration. In most cases there will be no 24 significant hazards. 25 MR. MALSCH: Right, but at least you make a -s V.' ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i. ~ 1* 60 1 preliminary i 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct. ( 3 MR. MALSCHa Is it possible to avo'id even s_. 4 doing that and'only making that determination in the 5 event you have received a hearing request? In other 6 words, pre-notice for hearing all amendments? 7 HR. OLMSTEAD: The reason we didn 't do 8 that -- we did consider that. There was quite a bit of 9 discussion about it. But the reason we didn't do that 10 is because of the stringent emergency criteria. If you 11 don't do it right up front as quickly as you get the 12 amendment, you can run the risk that the amendment will 13 be needed before you leave the notice requirements on 14 the criteria and you wouldn't be able to find that it 15 was an emergency situation because you dallied around 16 for a couple of months before you got around to making 17 that finding. 18 'M R. MALSCH: Okay. ~ 19 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: All richt. There are 20 some items that you are going to try to do some more 21 work on, this being one of them? 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There are points raised tod a y 23 which we will look at. g Q..)a 24 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: Very good. Thank you. 25 (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the meeting was $7) o ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 WRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
[,,,,,,. - p -. -;g _ - - ; u- - - - - - -. ----- ----- N y a
- . ;; #:- p :,'
%:14 61-74' !t 24' a
- .),Sp
! !l';W 1 COBCluded.]' .. s g
- 2
' O' l.[:. 4' ~ / 5.. 6-47 d . g- + g 10- - 11: '12 13 <:( = . 14.' 15 ari 16~ .') k- .17 18 19-20 ~ - )' 21 22-23. - W}. 24 i . a; gg. l 1 . r.z.,,9.e - (. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l ..._' 00 VIAG4NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202' 564-2345. 4 ~~ ~~ _____________.1_.-
,e l s ..s NUCLEAR si.wA%1E COMMISSICN -g- ~L 3'This is to certif7 that the actached ;rcceedings bef0rt the .r~ i.. 3 '~7 #12 the.satter cf: PUBLIC MEETING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAN 97-415 Qate of PPcceeding* January 18, 1983 Docket llumber: Place of Freceeding:_ Washincton, D.C. . ore held as hereir. appears, and that this is the original t: anscri;:c; thereof for the file of the Ccc:::rissicr.. Jane N. Beach Offtetal iteperter (Typed) f, ( "} 1 i N O icial Reporte.- (signacure) G 1 ,,v .r"n') b,
s I 27 5 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In the case you're 2 talking about, if there were a crack that led them to f' 3 have whatever the crack was in that had the plant out of. 4 compliance, your concern is that they would then be abla 5 to get into compliance by proposing an saendment? 4 6. MR. CASES Looking at it more frequently than 7 they would have. 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me the 9 common sense test of -- we 've got to be setting up a to standard that makes sense using the words~that one 11 ordinarily does. And it seems to me a situation like 12 this involves a significant hazard. 13 Now, you may feel it has been dealt with 14 satisfactorily. Tha t's the purpose of the amendmen t. 15 But however we treat the more important items, it ought 16 to fall ^1n that basket. 17 MR. CASE: But we tried to sa t the standard to 18 decide which was more important. 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, there has to be 20 a plus. That isn't decreasing safety; that's increasing 21 safety. well -- 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Except 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Certainly where f 24 there's a significant reduction in the margin of ~' 25 safety. No one's going to argue about that. (o,' i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
28 ?*. 1 HR.' CASE: You might get caught there. 2 COREISSIONER GILINSKY: Possibly. ('- 3 CONHISSIONER AREARNE4 Because the amendment 4 would'be to propose -- 5 HR. OLMSTEAD It depends on the nature of the 6 amendment.. If they're allowed to operate without the 7 increased surveillance, all they 're doing is coming' in 8 8 and saying we think we ought to increase surveillance, 9 so then it is not going to involve significant hazards 10 because they're already being permitted to operate with-11 a longer frequency between inspections. ~ 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs If the issue is not 13 being allowed to operate versus.heing allowed to operate 14 with increa sed surveillance -- 15 NR. OLMSTEAD: Then you might well have a 16 significant hazards consideration, because you have to 17 look beyond just t.he frequency of the surveillance to 18 see if they can or cannot operate. If they can operate, 4 19 than the nature of the amendment is to increase safety. 20 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: Did you have something 21 further? 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me there 's 23 something wrong if you set up a system in which a 24 solution, no matter how slight, to a problem will 25 ultimately be regarded as significant, and that puts . g~. 7 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4M VmGNA AVE., S.W., WASpNGTON, D.C. 2M2g202) 554-2H5_
5 \\ 29 en 1 that whole issue into the unimportant basket. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 But I'm not sure it _( j 3 does. 4 ,. COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Well, if it doesn't, 5 how is it caught by 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I think it would be 7 caught in number 3, because in the sense the amendment 8 would allow them to continue operating; because I think 9 they hypothetical case you came up with is there is some 10 damage to the system where otherwise you would make then 11 shut down and they would ask for permission to keep 12 operating for some period of time, and the argument for 13 increased surveillance will protect it. 14 But the argument now is that there is a 15 reduction, a significant reduction in the margin of 16 safety because prior to that it was supposed to be 17 o pe ra ting an undamaged system. Now you're operating a 18 damaged system with someone watching it on the grounds 19 tha t they can shut the plant down if necessary, but that 20 is lowering the msrgin of safety. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I was lookinq 22 for some interpretation and maybe that's it. 23 HR. CASE: I agree with that. (u,. 24 MR. OLMSTEADs I certainly agree wi th tha t, b u 25 the reason that it works is because there are two types t i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
30 .m 1 of amendments: amendments that allo w the plant to 2 operate when it would otherwise be required to shut (^ 3 down, and smendments that for whatever reason accomplish b 4 some other purpose but that they.would continue to 5 operate. And that frequently drives how NRR looks at 6 the significant hazards criteria. 7 If the plant cannot continue to operate under 8 its present operating conditions without sh utting down, 9 then you're perfectly right.. Usually, nine times out of 10 ten it's going to be in the third criteria. 11 If, on the other hand, the plant can continue-12 to operate but for some other reasons, maybe for 13 operating efficiency, they want the amendment, more than
- (.
14 likely it's going to be one of the other criteria. 15 HR. CASE What he's saying is the third one 16 in particular is designed for the kind of examples we 17 are bringing up where' a plant would otherwise be 18 required to shut down. Basically the-question is 19 determined on the staff judgment about the reduction in 20 the margin of safety as to whether it's a significant 21 hazards consideration, whether it's minor, no, major, 22 yes. No matter how you judge this, it's a j udgmen tal 23 call every time. 17' 24 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKYa Is this rubric of any 25 other significance? 0: ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
31 4 e 4 1 'MR. CASE: Yes. It comes from the regulations 2 which define an unreviewed safety question. An ~(} 3 unreviewed safety question is something the licensee 4 must seek approval of in changing opeCation or design, 5 and that is defined essentially as these words without 6 the "significant" in there. 7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: How many license o amendments are there per year approximately? 9 MR. CASE: Six hundred. 10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Six hundred? 11 MR." CASE Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What percentage involve 13 no significant hazards consideration? 14 MR. CASE: Very high. Upwards in the 90s, in 15 the staff judgment. 16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: High 90s? 17 5H. CASE: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -Which are of no 19 significance? 20 MR. CASE: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER GIiINSKY So 60 are significant? 22 MR. CASE: Two percent is what last year's a sta tistics were. '. u 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have a couple of 25 questions. One has to do with the three criteria for , n., () ALDERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
32 C 1 making the no significant hazards consideration 2 determination. 3 Back when -- I think it was particularly in 4 the Senate -- this provision was first considered, I 5 recall that there was at least some testimony to the 6 effect that the criteria that NRC put out as a proposed 7 rule, which in a sense is these criteria, were not 8 particularly clear or predictable in their application. 9 And I realize that in looking in the suarary 10 of the comments that that does not seem to have been a-- 11 predominant comment that the agency received at the time 12 on the proposed rule. Nevertheless, that was one of the 13 comments that I think the Congress heard when it wa s 14 considering this provision. 15 There is language in the conference report 16 that I think I says fairly clearly that when the 17 Commission develops these criteria, it is to make a 18 special effort to make sure the criteria are clear and 19 easily applicable and will result in a fairly certain -- in a degree of certainty in the dete rminations. And I 20 21 think we have included that language in the statement of 22 considerations as well. 23 I guess the question I have is you are g, *, vs 24 proposing putting out the criteria as a final rule. 25 Would it make sense, given the direction in the 'l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33 1 ' conference report and given the fact that the other 2 aspects, the procedural aspects, if you vill, of the. (.' 3 Sholly provision, have to go out as a proposed rule in ~ 4 any event, would it make sense to put out the criteria t 5-as a proposed rule ~ f or one more round of comment just to 6 ensure that that particular point is covered? 7 You know, again I recognize that this does not 8 appear to have been a very strong comment. It was made 9 on the original proposed rule when.it was put out in 10 1980. 11 COMMISSIONER AHEA RNE: Are you saying, Jim, 12 tha t you. vould want. comment to go out quoting the. 1'3 conference. report? 14 COMMISSIONER ASSElSTINEs No. What I'm saying 15 is before we adopt.the criteria as a final rule, we 16 perhaps oucht to consider putting those. criteria out as 17 a proposed rule, recognizing that what that might invite 18 is comments on the extent to which those criteria-19 respond to the direction that the agency had in.the i 20 confe rence report. 21 NR. CASES For one thing, it would depend on 22 what you do with the Sholly amendment. For instance, 23 there is some consideration, I gather, of making th em g 'n 24 interimly effective. If so, then you would need the 25 significant hazards consideration, wouldn't you? {R;.. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
34 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:' But they could go together. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: These aren't really .( ' 3 changed very much f rom before. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: These are essentially what 5 ven t out bef ore. 6 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE: Since they are 7 essen tially the same thing that you would be asking for 8 comment on, I believe that you would have to have some 9 reason for asking for that comment, so you would have to 10 say something such as the conference report directed 11 that the standards be capable to be applied, et cetera. 12-COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 And draw a clear 13 distinction. 14 ' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And I guess one would 15 have to go on to say we believe this does it, and if it 16 d oe sn ' t, how would you propose that it be changed to 17 make it do that. 18 COMMISSION ER ASSELSTINE: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Without any other 20 specific comment it doesn 't make any sense. 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That would be the 22 only basis I see. 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The alternative basis would f' 24 be to put them in context. You now have the Sholly j 25 amendment. '5 L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
35 (_ 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Except you always had 2 significant hazards issues. {'.- I would prefer not to put 3 MR. CUNNINGHAE4 4 them out f or comment again, but if you're looking for a 5 basis, that would be a basis to tie them to the Sholly 6 rule. 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess it basically 8 boils down to two questions: one, are you all satisfied 9 that those criteria really do respond to the directions 10 that we had in the conference report, that they really 11 do draw-a clear distinction between no significant 12 hazard considerations amendments and those that do 13 involve significant hazards consider ations, and do you 14 believe they respond to the consideration -- 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is that a prefatory 16 question? 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The question is can the 19 conference report be satisfied; is it possible to meet 20 tha t? 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: My response is going to be 22 we've been as responsi.ve as we can. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's not doing what (,;~,- the conference report said to do, but that's a se pa ra te 24 25 question. 6% \\,^/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
36 ,. 3 ~1 COEMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I didn't write the 2. conference report. 3 MR. CASE: When we move in that direction with 4' the examples, I think that is the best you can do to try 5 to ensure that consistency is in there. 6 COMM'ISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Consistency wasn't 7 included in the direction. 8 (Laughter.) 9' ER. CUNNINGHAMs Of course, part of the 10 attempt to be as clear as we can is inclusion of the 11 examples, both 9, which do, and 8, which don't, and 12 vice-versa. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What are at least 14 some of those examples?.There's another one that I want 15 to raise next. 16 (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Whether this is the 18 Sholly amend %en~t. I guess for myself I would still want 19 to think a little bit about the possibility of putting 20 out the criteria for comment again. It is just because 21 I do remember that there were some who at least argued 22 that these three criteria were not clear at all, and 23 they did not draw a clear differentiation between the 24 two kinds. 25 I never did hear anyone come up with any ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
37 O. 1 concrete suggestions or proposals on how those or other 2 criteria could be modified or developed.. <{ ' 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The only distinction 4 I've heard is all amendments are significant hazards. 5 (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is clear, and-7 it is certain.' 8 I guess the next question I have is new 9 example 9. On examples for amendments that are likely 10 to involve significant hazards considerations, I 11 understand the reference to the one phrase in the 12 conference report that you have on page 19. I guess I e 13 have a couple of questions. 14 Does including example 9 in that list mean 15 tha t -- does that resolve the no significant hazards 16 consideration issues they a re likely to involve? Are 17 you saying that in all cases where you have an amendment 18 permitting a significant increase in ef fluent emitted by 19 a power plant that that would be dispositive of whether 20 you have a significant hazards consideration amendment? 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm getting advice from that 22 end of the table. 23 MR. CASE: It says "likely." It doesn't say g. 24 "always." I think it's more or less a prima facie case 25 unless you had some reasons to the contrary. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
38 b .r~ 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I was curious. 2 Guy, I'm not sure how closely you were 3 involved. I was wondering whether any of the authors (' ' 4 looked through this. Are they familiar with what the 5 Commission did do and the conclusion it did reach about 6 the TMI positions that we have taken? 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think the answer to that is 8 yes. 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The conclusion is that 10 this is not inconsistent with that? 11 MR. CASE: Yes, that is my conclusion. It 12 wasn 't meant to be a backing away. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: As I understand it, 14 I gather the one sentence or that ph ra se in the 15 conference report did engender some discussion when the 16 conference report was considered. I've gone back to 17 look at thst. But I ga ther tha t the re was some 18 discussion of that phrase and its relationship, for 19 example, to any future case that would resemble the 20 krypton bedding issue. 21 Did you all look at that, too, when you 22 decided on incorporating the new element 97 23 24 25 \\ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRQNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
39 / 3. 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I don't know that we went 2 beyond the text of the conference report. 3 NR. OLMSTEAD: We had some conversation to 4 lead us to believe that tha t is correct. 5 COMNISSIONER AHEARN.Es You might want to track 6 that. 7 MR. OLMSTEAD: Tom might be'able to address 8 this better than I. 9 MR. CORIAN: Tom Dorian from ELD. We split it 10 with the various people who testified before Congress as 11 well as the staff and people who are working on the 12 conference report. This is the language that they said 13 they thought should be put in as an example. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was c ongressional 15 staff advice? 16 MR. DORIAN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would like to, I 18 guess, reserve a little bit on this element as well. I 19 seem to recall that there may have been some discussion 20 among the floor consideration of the conference report 21 that might shed some more light on whether this is 22 intended to mean that you are supposed to give special 23 attention to these kinds of consideration in deciding \\:s 24 whether this is a no-significant-hazards consideration 25 and in ruling out this authority.- (.5, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
9 40 1 MR. DdRIAN: It is clear, by the way, tha t we 2 should give that special attention; that came through. 7 3 . COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But that would -(v. 4 certainly not be dispositive on the issue. 5 MR. DORIANs I don't think it is. It says 6 likely or not likely. In that case it is a prima facie 7 case unless there is other evidence. y. l 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Tom, did you bounce 9 that -- here the congressional staff says it should be i l 10 in there. Did you go back to NRR and see whether that 11 should be definitely in there as an example? The 12 original list of examples were constructed primarily 13 with the technical staff. 7 I 14 MR. CASES Yes, this vent back. There was no 15 comment on it that I know of on the addition of tha t 16 criteria. There were on some of the other issues. 17 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. They were vocal on those 18 that they firmly disagreed with, and we removed them. 19 [ Laughter.] 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In any event, this l 21 list is for examples of one side or the other, and is 22 intended to be only a' list of those that at least on 23 first impression appear to be cases in which you either gp 't 24 do or do not have significant hazards consideration, and 25 it is not jrtended to be dispositive in any of those uC'\\ V.) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, ~ 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
41 s',. s t' 1 ' cases. l 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Dispositive of the merits? - (('~ 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Dispositive of 4 whether it. is involving significant hazards 5 consideration. For example, can you have a' proposed 8 amendment which would, if adopted, permit a significant 7 increase in the amount of effluence or radiation emitted 1 i ~ 8-f rom a power plant? That might well be determined on a 9 case-by-case basis to be an amendment involving 10 no-significant-hazards consideration. 11 BR. CUNNINGHAN: I would think it unlikely. 12 HR. CASE: But possible? 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But possible. 14 dR. CLESTEAD: I don't varit to confuse the 15 example you just gave with the TMI situation because I I 16 - don 't necessarily think that they are the same 17 hypothesis. 18 ER. CASE: No. 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that because of 20 the term "significant"? 21 HR. CASE Yes. 22 ER. OLESTEADs Yes, and you haven 't defined the term over which you are talking. 23 If we had ..I 24 considered originally in all of our assessments for a 25 particular. plant that it were a 50-year term, x number h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA ?VE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-EKO
I 42 ,.x 1 of effluents would be released, and you are now talking ~- 2 about x plus something, tha t is one situation. If you 3 are only talking about if I divided x by 40, that would 4 be so auch this year, and~this year I as proposing to do 3 5 2-1/2 times that but my 40-year average is going.to be 6 froughly the same, then that is an entirely different set 7 of circumstances. 8 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNEs Ed, running through 9 this, running through this list, where would you come 10 out on somathing like THI venting? 11 ER. CASE: I don't think it fits number 9, and 12 not because of special considerations, either. l t I 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay, that is, I l I i 14 think -- 1 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You say there may be J 16 some discuss' ion froa the floor? k 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I will have to go i.. 13 back and look and see. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You could go back and L.. 20 do that. 21. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 To see if when the 22 bill was considered, the-conference report was 23 considered by the Senate, see if there was some floor 24 discussion of tnat particular issue and whether that 25 phrase in the conference report was intended to indicate , f'O ALDERSoN REPoRTINo COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHIAGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
e4 Al->- FDR 7 ? .\\. /j - g jarvary '?. 190' SECY-83 '6 RULEMAKING ISSUE The Conrais%AI4itnation) r l ~or: Uce: William J. Dircks g Executive Director for Operations Suo;ect-REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION ON (1) i TEMPORARY OPERATING LICENSIM AL'TFORITY AND i (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDEPATION (ThE "SHOLLY AMENEMENT") J Nrpose: To obtain Commission approval of publicaticn of prcpcsec ~ and final regulations implementing legislation which "i [ authorizes NRC to issue (1) temporary operating licenses and (2) requested operating license amendmerts involving R no significant hazards consideration before the conduct 3 g o# any hearing, g Ji scuss'cr 'r August 1982, the Senate and House conferees agreed on
- i legislation authorizing appropriations to NRC for fiscal f
I years 1982 and 1963. Relevant portions of the Conference Repcrt are attached at Enclosure 1A. In late December, ? E both houses of Congress passed this legislation, leaving 5 it unchanged with respect to temporary operating licensing authority and the Shelly Amendment, and on January 4, 1983, F
- wrs signed into law as Pub. L. 97-415.
(See Ercicsure E 18.) Since, amon) other things,1* recuires tfiat MC act ~ p prorretly to promulgate regulaticns I ar. sending tM s ~e P package to you for ycur prompt review and approval. L yj Aacng other things, the legislation authorizes us to issua temporary operating licenses for nuclear power plants and to issue amencinents tc operating licenses ? Y involving no significant hazaros consideration befcre g L the conduct of any hea*.ing. The legislation also j directs us to promul p te, within 90 days cf eractment, m e i; h regulations whien establish: (a) standards fcr 4 j-detemining whether any amtndment to an operat4nc j~ license involves no significant hazards censicerat cr; i qij (b) criteria for providing or, in emergency s tuat oes, g h dispensing with prior notiv:e anc reaschable opportunity p for public cc.nnect on secr a cetermination; and (c : i g d precedures for consu' tatio, on ar, such deterM natice ~1 witn tne State in which tre <acility involvec is 'ecatec. l ~ a Centact: Thoatas F. Dorian, CELD .s" M 492-8690 g4 Ag' -s3GrM eea6 esotr r - s
E = > $gf/ I s 1 l hh2k g$s - m-16 ....s-. f3 - g d ~ MELip : r ?-f5 _[{ r C 1 a .e a is cur proposa' on prior notice and < - 'e opportan'tj for puo'ic cerment on
- r-
--' ations involving nc significant hazards <s';erations. We considered two alternatives.
- ao e the same to the extent that thev sea :ce: 'or a proposed rule, issued for thirty Ou;ilc ccrrent, which gave the criteria f
_4 in ; ;r:cedures for providing or, in emergency !.a t ions, dispensing with prior notice and 3 <ees:nable opportunity for public cenment on a 7 4
- etermination about no significant hazards
~ '
- crsiceration and which gave the procedures for ao re :.,' red consu ltation with the S* ate in
,j r, e facility involved is located. With rubi'c netice, bcth were dif #erent th
- ceoures discussed in the previous 7
--r ? ~^e final legislation and its history J i or 're-that norma'lj the staf' shocid ( ruti'c coar,ent a proposed A' -. er sign'fican* haz3rcs 1
- posed tc tre ;rocedure
+ 1 r -"e 0 esicus dr*+t c' s'mply t crce r* ct an arencment w -"e ' na' de*ereinatics, b ,ons o 'ec* tn1< cnange. E 3 '. ; emp i t : to li*erally ,ig e-f cr inte -egul***crs by jf "etere' rat' ' O r e v e ry .. q/f4 '"C' re,1 ewing. deuu ent "C, i' m 5 D:,i 70Trer's Gr
- hd*
[
- waf ae
'n Cc cc7*,nr _y 9 o .m , arc <aiy, .uleg '*y%R
- 7f 1
- e
- - r-
'at:_r. The guiceitne in this 5 ampf was tu ;rOvide oct:ce arc Cab' _ ;?crer* g n i s t e 3 t ', e '. m wo rr 2-E .o -e cos- . c ct <*> e ne + ,, ecc 4 1;owec for meaning?u. ;uc c ;ctror-k .e ><ond ^uldeline was tc crev4de Sta*.c cesu'ta
- cecure?, similar to those in tne ; res1ous
- g wnich were relatively simple, easy tc acrin*er, e s
t fair to the States. We found that ne matter hcw n and easy we attemoted to make the procedures centen-a ?( plated by the legislation, they, r.onetheless, were quite k burdensome and involved significant resource 'rcacts or *:: C ^ especially en NRR. The first alterr.a* ive, 'or exampie, gg i would have involved about ten additiona' prc'essicr6' 'yLg staf' years of work during one jear c' amercrar* -aques* Og i basec 'n an average of 600 amendments ;er year t = b E 9 ~.}! ^ P t L
f (.. f ~ p. e-- x -- f -7 7e w ;ssioners a-and tried to lighten this impact, whi 4 ;taying within the two guidelines. We chose a second, what we believe to be, somewhat less burdensome alternative. This version, also in keeping with the legislation, involves about four to five staff years of work during one year of amendment I recuests. It is based on the fact that a conclusior. I about no significant hazards is needed only where we have received a request for a hearing and and it is decided to make the license amendment immediately effective and to finish the hearing after issuance of the amendment rather than before. The no significant hazards determination bas no other practical significance. This alternative is tailored like the first alternative; however, it avoids the necessity of expending as substantial an amount of resources as contemplated in the first alternative on proposed and final detersinatier,s of no significant hazards consideration a (1) b,> nomally coupling prior notice for public comment on propsad determinations with prior notice 'er og portunity for a hearing for amendments to operating licensts, (2) by requiring applicants requesting amendr4nts to provide us and the State involved with their appraisals on the significant hazards cuestion as well as on the issue of emergencies, wh2re they k. want us to act quickly on their requests without the usual public cocenent procedures, and (3) by completing } an evaluatica leading to the final detemination of no significant hazerd consideration only where a hearing { request is received. Thus, this alternative would a provide a less time consut.11ng and resource intensive y procedure by eliminating the need for a final ceterminat'an on no significant hazards unless there G is a hearing request. The Federal Register notice e would make this clear. In any case, if a hearing recuest is received and if it were concluded that the amendrent posed no significart hazards. it wculd becore effective pending the completion of ar hearing. This j also *culd be T.ade clear n the Federal Register notice. This seccnd alterrative is cescribed more fully in Enclosure 4; we propose it for adoption by the Cortnission. As mentier.eo, the resource impacts of both alternatives are significant and are discussed in the Regulatory Analysis gg ir Enclosure 5 tcgether with the resource impacts of the gr" other rules. reat:ces. That the Comiss1cn: t (a; Apprn e publicition of the rules in Enclosures 2, 3, anc
- with res)ect to temporary operatiro licensing tuthori+y and :he "Sholly Amerdment."
..y t A
3* . =- m .my.w~~x ..m... .mn mew;,yg ~ ~ ..o M w., %n AG.ni&%- H..- :as a .a y,; - ....__ - g-gg e, ~ Gj i mr U.%.m. i tiotbE OF H21'uthrNTATivES l Hamr l l W 17 mt A!.N. c.: r ~. - s -. n.:- AllTIIGHlZlhG APPHOPitlATIONS FOR Ti!E NUCl.EAft HEGUIEIORY COMMISSION Sarnuman A tim? -4kJered to be primaad Mr. U04t2, from the committee os derence, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT IT* accompeay n at ases The committee of confarence on the ".. _
- weses of the two
! waes on h aWat of the Sensee to theh (H.R. m to authoria approprnation to the NecIsar Re0mleteep Comensionien in enordance 'witi. :aetion 251 ef the Atemde Benny Act of 1986, as amended, and section M of ties Emener P Ant of 1974, as amended, and Eer saane. m henter sees, ator Antl and free conservnce, have agreed to rh% and de sneennemend to their respective Heunes as follows: ht the lieues recede freen ita * ----- -M to the mea % of the Senate and agw to the amene with an -* as foi-- gaww In lieu of the snetter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment innert the followin; I AttruonszArrow or Annoensassons Swruw 1. tal There are herody ennekersand se he . 2 ' to the Nuclear heulosery Comasseeeen in eeenodenne k. 'she seesoi-swns of section 261 the Annonie Renny Ant af JN6149 RLSC 20 lit and sevison 306 she ^' AntafJ0F4til U.Sc 5873r for k yeare eel 1889 se seneeds aamienbie unta czprmla!. Mang far fineel !$Et end Mit20lt000 for fiscalyant 198J to be eNoneand tis Not more them AIWL750t for penal year JJff and $17.00tt000 forfeenel 1981 neer he need pine **)Annener fleec-sor 19enuJetson. of h en anecent not so esened $1.000,000 u authersted each seth fieral.por to be need en erreterate the w u20 + ,mgyg.sf M. Ja o ash a h'A 'l' 'd ' 19.... 1.
- Wm
. INN *
-~ ~~ ~ s m oasar orss<tir. ucsksxs "fla en all respects other thun the. ph' sw i. xctson 19 the Atomse w.rgy Act of 19.54 sit I, S t. any r,equirrd hoursng, the reyusremenes of lu aa oi av n rs Lsca m s _ assurum that openem of the facdsty durning the two of ihe T95 se ,pp,, g,, g tempamsy opentsag Isanse an mwdame u stn no, inm, sual g fora il t I y requsred to be i nsed u llLt l nmehtas wsH e adapuste pmtutum to the puMu hmHb 204 b of thss Act, in which a hearsng is otherwise required pursu and safety and he ens,ironment dursng the perunt of tempurarv
- 's I
ss e i a s e Iden of such tempunsry operatsng lutnse wnll resuh an t Ys esTi and operation at a iox power level to be deter. delay betuwen the date on which constructum of the facshty se muned by the Dansmission pendissq hi actsare by the Omnmsssson sufficeerstly remplesed, in the judgnsent of the Commsssson, to on the appliantsen. De initial petstson for a temporary operating h. permst ssenana of the temporary opemting heense. and the date ernse for emek sanch facKity, and any geneporary operats'ag license when such facihty seneesid otherwise remise a psal operutung h-sssuaffor such ferility bened apen the initsalpetition, skaH be hm-unse pursuant to this Act. sted to power leoele not so esened & percen8 of rated full thermal The tem operethng license shall betonee effectin upm issu-amw a. ska i contain such terms and conditions as the Omemis-pcwer. PoHowing issw== by the Gunmission of the temporary oper-ceing license for each such facihty, the beenue may (de petstsons sion may deem noteenary, includiq the dumtum of the beense and with the Connaineien to annend the leernse to aHone foeshty oper-oney pmvision j%r the essension thereof Any final order authorusng atson in staged sacreases at specife puutt levels, to be determsnel the sesseance or aneendneeni of any se operating license purs t, the Consmission. eeceedsM 3 percent of resed fun therneal power-suaut to this secteen eben recite seith ' wity the facts and era-ne ic,isial petstion for a seneporary opemting license for each such sons justifying the findinge under thse sonoretion, and shall be facility neay ** filed at any Isme after the Disas af' til the **purt of transmitsed upone such isenance to the Omsmittene on Interior and the Ad Canastsee on Reactor Safeguards required by sectson insular Affaire and Energy and Omsasern of the House of Repre-jgg b;(t) (Uiq of he initial Safety bhaluation Report by the sentatisme and the Omenstler on Entuironneent and PuMie %rks of Nuclear Regulatory Omsmissic,:: staff and the Nuclear Regulator > the Senate. De final order of the Omensineian erith respect is the Consmisuson staff's first supP emens to the report sn re-sssuance or oneendneent of a de operating license she.H be l sponse to the report of the Adessory OmemUtee on tor Saft-subject tojudicial teedew purenant sa e ISM of title 18. Unital guaede for the facshty; 43) the Nuclear Rouseia:-v Commsssson Staste On6r. De teneoitwneents section 189 a. of this Art wsth re-ssaffe flaat decaded statement on the enveronmentaf smpat of the spert to the innenence or am swent of fecihty linnses shall not facshty prepermipursesent to sectum 10ht%Clof the Nassersal End apply to the issuaner or amem! ment of a temporary operutsng h-rommental nelmey Act of 1962 til U.S C 41232tC3% and 44) a State, cense under this anetion. loest, or utdity emergracy preparedness plan for the facility 1%ts- "c. Any hearsag enn the applisotum for the final opemtung luwnse isons for the sassaaace of a tem operutsng hcense. or for an for a (cenhly twqsnited pursuant to secisons 183 a. shah be ameluded smendment to snach a latense al ng <peratioes at a specs (se pouw' as promptly as practicaMr. The Commsssion shah suspend the tem-lewigreater than that autherned an the snstsal temporary averutent parury operating license if it finds thet the appixant ss not pns-hanse, shail be accompansed by an affsdoss,st or affulavsts settsnt nutsag the appluation for the j;nal operating license with due dsh-8 forth the specsjic facts upuns which the prootsoner reiws tojustsf! *^ gence. Issuance of a temporury cperating ikense under subesetson at suance of the temporury operatsag hcense or the omendment thereta af this asetion shah be without prejuduw to the rsght ~f anyfurty to The Comnaisesons shah paeMish notsce of each such petitson en the ruise any issue in a heariq mired puraant to section Iso c; ansd s Federul Register and in seech trude or
- west P"Mitut**** ** d** 0""'
fusslure la assert any gmund fue deni<s! or hmitation of a tempururs messue deems approprease to gew emmunaMe notus to persons who eywatig license shall not bar the araertum of owh gn und en wn mocht hasw a potentsalinterest en the grunt of such temporary oper-nectson weth the issuana of,,a suber< punt linal etwruting twenw arsag turner er amendownt therero Any person may file affidavsts g,, g g,a n,,, gag,,,,,4 pur,,,,g g,,,,qum ggy a,m gre s statements en support of, or sn oppuestuus is the petstson erschin finafsp,e,rstsu hcense for a facehts for wha <h a temporary operus- ? isser, days after the peMwatson of such netsce an t*w FvJeral Regis-sng liwest has been issued under s'ubsection b. and any twmber of the Aseneie Safety and Licensing Board nnducting such hearsng. y' '< ', W,th res, ret to any perstwn fated pursuant to suberetum a o.f shallpromptly notify the Omemission of any enformatson snJuuting t th ss w stoon, INe Conemssnum rnas suur a temporary operatsng is that the ternes ased romhtsons of the ternpomtv operatsng hcenese are cense. or smend the hcenar tu aselhorue tempeorary operatsons at eark ,,, g,; ,,,g,, gg,,,,, g,,,,,,,4 ,y, y,,,,,,,4,upyggy,, y. spa afu paaver fewt greater than that authorsud en the instsal tens-la easth the penwestons sipssrugrasph its of subse tson b ymrur, opermesq twense, as determson! Cy the Omsmsseson, upon y u_ y,,,y ,,,g g;,,,g,g y,g,,,,,g,g. Isnd**** th**~ "" coneedmen ne the Omnasiasion deems appenprsatt to mini. 'r ~ [ _ j@ u, e,- t. n. ..:n6L
- r.,..
7 l! 3 o:[ I z aq i i 4 ' 9: y y iv : 4 r. ~ ~I;r
c m egeminispin w m -m wnn a m m m e m ne: m e % - F u e Public Works Gmmittee, contamed a similar pron'sloa, but this. i ~ was deleted du consuleration of & 1207 by the fuW [ 'llie centerees have advised that the NRC and DOE, on March 15,1982, emeered into a memorandum of understanding .i which este forth the roepeative responsibilitice of the two egencies 3 j for removal and d' ; - W of the solid nuclear westes fruse b cleemup of 11EI-L h. " fy, the conferees have agreed to omit 4, "4 the House,._/ '-- At the same time, however, the conferece jj intend that the Congrees he hdly apprised by the NRC of au activities undertaken the RC and DOE of a colleborative . a mesure with sospost to cleanup of TMI-L Therefore, in lieu of the. ^ sentained in suksestian Nie) of HJt. K.30, the con-forees hose lasteded in eastion W of the confereses agressment a provkien disassing the E la the ammuel report to the C..- to insiado a auch activities. 11dr4 the h5 e ineesion 14) the NBC drama any 6 sedlemethe wesse weser Thil-R late the Sisageshamme . The Smerte annendeneet did met osatein a samhsense includes la edessties of the arm provissen. Undseesseum as ains any authestead to ggsess suisses of "sedienceive me et ins esadmenos essee-woes.t to anaking it einer that mese the diesbesges of Manctive water 1. ,,,,,eh,se.ssion..thB et th.e 4'( in s The ed the deauhan of this r. -'- h - p 14h eastsees I ""fo s..s.o m.es E..eadsg.e$ .m-s
- a. af t
useese. , isis.
- s. se..o
-e ee t eneselet saastsee eldsb ausg stand-l ands er Iluso am;, to s e p e ine slac asseresedise and ansk
- st.o.s E
- se,sses s _W -. _ as e,.s. - M 6e S mete M 6e es isese tasapesusy ser " inter- } pesar reacters if eastein esadi-l3 authesity se lusoe i Aur.moeteer semesateg sca-i ~ and esoptetion of hearing;s re- ) L' T~ ITT
..... -.. - M ( .J. Qws 1% rl% .Q and %'I h, S 12in ancluded a ruvneson darestmg any part y imler an ta,n IM8 t , t re h m...pm . udn1 e 42 U S ( o" q 1.'s uw go atir license ng, as well e s atey rnensb.a J t h4 orn n - n, r [ . i t or s; arnt p, w.,t u r.d i n-nwm -,~ s on a licensing board, to rmisfy the f,nnmawmm ut an > : n f or ma t mr. [ 1/i PU - h' \\' mdicating that the, licensee wea.n not cornplymg w it h ih.- t.-r rns of t
- -e.4
.m1 c aph. it s emeniba. mt% uA antenm opera heenac N nula @ the ' inn n % nsn w as o i e ilu to a tenns t he mhrun A. n- *** na t um 1 t' sor ttw tumuni ce of 4e tesne ras y operat mg ia,,, aMuata Hotase M has no simdar requin neent Ttw lhouse litll to!uired that n Tt ll. hrst nate amendnwat d(irected NRC to adopt le hansied adnunistr tive th.an five perw nt o m pmer reactor i ratni f ull tlw r n. u r -i diangen thast wm4M mt.. mere the need for immuarue of mu run op r N llou c prm swon allownl. *utmur nt u the annu.4 m atmg hcenses 11.11. 23h had no much directive j IUl asal contingent up on twenwr apphi atem samt i knm w at lesch up to asui .o! :* y lloth the llouse erul Senate mta-nded that the Gunmsmmon a su proval. the galant to operate rwer b 5 enate amendment encorperutni a mesmi.or M. p to si. p thority to assue temparary operating hcensen should espire at a
- 11. tws'h an metaal uptu r limit of five penent pmer op rnt uen,,
time certain. W Commemmaon a nuthonty under the f lounic biil germittmg the pussubalaty of acerwicacy to f ull pmer pr mr to the ended on Septembe-M.198:1 The espiration date under S t2tn completauri of hearings requiri-l umter en t on IM' of t he A t n o, was December 31,191G Fnergy Act Section 11 of the mnference agreement asnends auction IW of the h Senate amendnwnt requireis filing ef a State. La al or utibt > Atomic Energy Act cf 1954 (42 U.RC. 2242) and panta the Commen emergt-ncy preparedncam plan prior to petstum by an.sppla unt to, swan authority to assue a temporary operatirig lycense for a utslaza an intenm operating licen e bction 12 of the llouse bdl nmtamed tion farslity required to be hcensed under sectson 103 or 104 h of no manul.ar rnauerement The llouse dwi provule ivi ma<tuiri o id 11 H the Act_ The ei,vaement specifies that an applica nt may petie aos. 232, however, that the Ormmissum was to determine prior to sme u the Commbnion foe a TOL tauthorizing fuel loading, reactor testing. a 'IUl. that an emergency purparnhw m plan emented which pro and operationes at a specific power level to L.e determined by the 6 re-amonable samurance that pubhc twalth and safety would not Commission. *lhe conferees intend that the applicant cannot under v he enimgered by a plant operating under a tempurary. peratmg fake any such activities until final favorable action by th-Commm hcen e au n on the 'f0L application. h conference agreement also spec: S l3n required NHC to publiah mance of a prtitum for an inte r fees that the initial petition for a *lDL, and any temporary brenne emin operating lawnne LJnder the Sn. t. ames.dment, any party was tusued by the Obsemamsson pursuant to the initial petation, must he allowni te file suppu tma or opp =*ans; affidavits withm :10 d nym of leeruted to power levels not to exceed 5 percent of rated full ther much notam fly referrace to the cuantmg nettion IT of the Atoma mal power. Energy At-t, the lhme provnini theat any piirty coun.1 file suppwt Under the conference agreernent, which is==h=*= stially similar sng ur oppummg affwi.swits withm 14 days of the filmg of the pese to section 20) of the Senate amendment, the conserves intend that tacu The llouse provinson alun empowerni the NitC to entend this any 'IDL, whether for initial operation at 5 perant of full power or tanic by 10 days for operation at a Isiglior power level, would be samued or amended Il lt Z tto rgared the Commue.um to hold a %ermg on the only upon a vote of the Commiazion itself. The conferees intend temporary op.iting hcenw that the authority to issue or senend such licennes, or to make find-ammue of whetirr or not to grant .a Under the llosame ball, ich hearmg. which ca.uld be held after the ings required by subsection b, may not be delegated to the NRC immaance of the TY)l. could he omolutated with the final op ratmg staff. F license hearmg held by NitC pursuant to an tum to o' the Atomic The cunferees believe that the circumstances whach gave rise to 4 Energy Act. S 12tri d6d not rayuire a hearing on the meuance of an the need for sectaan 11 of the conference agreement, tincludang prb intenm operating license marily the temporary reessa'gnanent of NRC staff from licensing 'Ib Ilorism proeision required NHC to fmd. prior to samuance of a review worlt to poet.'three Mile Island safety reevelennainnel were 'lVI. that the licensee would nu reure or diamant6c anny of its en unique and will not recur in the for-=hle future. As the Com-antag generating capacity hecm-of the nem capooty provided by miamion itself acted in its March 18, 1961 letter subnaitting pro-the factisty to be grurted the t-e m p sasy luv n=e The Senate puumd legislation to authortae the isseaance of temporary low-power an.c=8 ment to section Itr? of the Atomic Energy Act dal not run~ operating licenses, su h legislation represents an **estraordinary tain this e.sciction. and tem cure for an estraordmary and temporary situm. W Senate maadawn:.hd moure the a 'ommamanon to make a tion." In the conferees expect the C-to use this imding. prior to immu.mu 4 an meerim vratmg iwen c. that pened to continue to revsew ha operating Ecense and case mw the amtial operation denial of much license would reu m dels v o ment :- and to mah surb changes as may b mded to of the facility tdue to comph t he pi - anstructaan nor to increase their peerall efficiency without restricting the rights of 4 the cenpletsort of the et - pubhc ' w moui unde' the public la raise and have resolved the Isgitimate safety and en-the Atomac Escrgy A i < Init wed no made=r m virenamental incess winicle accontpany the construction and licene-quirement gag og m am,, 7_ gg, manG a ~ . ' ' n v fMp...,#m... 3 y i e., g.?.. ~. y Q. glf.hh.*f? N YW. ) &bhfY? Y(.[kh. .f. j.. ~ .o. ~. - v ;,; - l :f h.. kN .O y.3.. . 3. y. ~ ;7 3,
- ,,.c -,
- s -
7 _....s+ t :.- e-
- ...,,. :.. c 3
o "'n or t ons aun mat in u. way m 'd'"'
- "h'h""""*
. p. emt.o a deter mmation h t m n i tm in,
- *h P""" 8 '<
- H )
- ' ""' I I Y ' h" I k ' "'
w m.a every.to da w n., '. ..., a premunptively re dy to operate he a v. ha - nw nd ment o unt.a propmeo to twn operations one r const ruct e ompkint
- '"ed using Ow i n n neC o < m n o m m mu umnt y t he nacar vrwnwnt, a TOL cannot be issued l+bo e a,igmficant
""d a m M du r ipt u.n of the anwnd
- h. ?'
C""* "# P" " m necine to the facshty m questwn have hwn rewh,t & mete. m its repor t " ornpanymg S 1216 dirwted the "w nt ammuasum's mat almetams Paragrc sh 418 and 0 of mute . s "W' ' M" "n t b en wtw M sta O of irw mnference agrTemment are utended to a ssu re that. aut horit y under this ruvsom ..' N
- mt upon W1 the informatsoa available to the Commtasmn the Dw Hume we the W to pmmulgate standards 2
< g.nrat-n u, able to find that the factlity would meet mil require Nithin 90 days of enactment) for determinmg whether or not an 24 d aw ts. ' law tother than the conduct or completion of any raquared an.cndnwnt to a heense mvoM no synificant huwds consaders- ^7' twarin,p necessary for the sasuance of the final operating beenw """ W note amendnet expbQ pacm& tamed the (4>mmes. U
- nk.wtmn lled) of the conferenue agreement datata the Comnus saon's authwity to tasue and make ernmediately efintne beenme 4.
mn to adopt such administrative remedees as it deems appropriate anwndments involving no magnancant hazards consideratson am pro-W to manamize the need for ' - of temporary ogeratmg beenws "*N.'t on by NRC of standards for making the no sigmncant he Tlus suts.ection reflects the conferees' expectation thnt a Tot. should be a last resort res,sedy, to be employed only wfwa no other pted a compromise provraion taection 12 of the e alternative is avaalable his seabwrtion envisions that the N Ht, conference agreement) which amends section lH9m of the Atomic wdl adopt such remedies pursuant to its surrent statutory authori ICnergy Act of 1954 (4211 S C. 22'l%H Under the conference agre ty. azul is not intended to confer any additannal authority upm the nient, the "'43 may issue and make immediatel effective a no mg-NIN. beyond that it now possesses. In additson, the conferees emp ct nificant hazards consideration amendment to a acility operating h-that any administratave remedies adopted to minimare the need f"' cense before holding a hearmg upon request of an interested party. ns.uance of TOL s shall rw4 themselves infrtage upon the right of The Commission may take such action only after (in all enst emer-any party to a full and faar heari-ag under the Atomac I?nergy Att gency situatsons),(Il consulting with the State in which the facihty N conferves intend that the Commission shall notify the Congre" is located, and (2) providing the public with notice of the propowd samal cummitteen listed m mute.ertion litb) of the conference agree action and a reasonable opportunity for comment. nwnt of all ad:nmistratave remedies that it proptmes to adopt in ac' The conference agreement maintains the uirement of the cur-cordance with mutmectaan llof' re at section IN9a of the Atomic Energy Act t a hearing on the 4 b ense amdmW b bM ispam b maaest d any person whose sex 7um i 2 ocusamen urtwas auswoutwT assas swa, ir inest may te affected. The agreement simply authorizes the ma "smaur" s movisum Gnmission, in those cases where the amendment involved puses h liouw and Senate each granted the Commassum new author so significant hazards consideration, to issue the license amend-t sty to appe ave and make immediately eficctive certain amendments ment and allow it to take effect before this hearing as held or com-to INenses fe micleeir p>wer reactorw epon a determination by the rieted The conferees intend that the Commisenion will uw this au-Commasanan that the amendment mvolved no magnificant hazar h thority carefully, applying it only to those luense amendmenta considerat um which pose no signif. cant hazards cunuderation. Sartoon 11 of the lluuv estabhaheal this new Coe..miss*>n aut hor The conferves also espect the Commission in prumulgstang the sty en a provisaon that did not amemt entstang law N Senate regulations uired by the new subnection 12tCNel of section 18Sa. amendment granted the Commanneon permanent aut horit y W W the Atorr.ic ' ergy Act, to eintablish standards that to the extent amending the Atomac Energy Act of is practicable draw a clear distinction between license amend-nts ~ l'ader II IL 2330. the Commission's new authority was hnuted to that involve a significant hazards consaderation and those assend-l censes The aut horit y nwnts that involve no such consideration hue standards shootid arnendments to nuclear power reactor i emier S 12tn wa. broader. and estemled to amemiments to b not reymre the NRC stuff to prejudge the merits of the issues cenws for all becahtsca luenmed umice the Atosnac I?nergy Act n iwd ley is propmed hcense aimemiment. Rather, they should only The llouse etwofWI that NRC coukt approve and make immedi mauire ahe stafT to identify tiume issues and determine whether 4 ately c(Tective n heense amendrnent or ty after notificatwin of etw they mvo!ve segmficant health, safety or environmental E -'S Wee standards should be capable s4 being applied with State in which the facihtv was ha sted Also. the th>use required nuns the Commisason "w hen practicable to consult wit h the State ree ami certamly, and should ensure that the NRG ataff dans not ,l ta-fore tesu ence of an amendment W Senate requirvd the Com rewive duubtibl or borderline cases with a findsng of no signs 5 cant maanon to consult with the State in which the facelsty was locatec harards consideraison when determining whether or not en amendment envolved a sag The conferees intend that in determining whether a prayeesd li-asficant barsords c,-- ' anon. The Senate also darwted NRC to cense amendment involves no sig.tificant hazards. - JM or providing prior notice and the Commission should be especially sensiti*e to the issue pseed by i f v > wiska 38 days criteria = I ).M 4. t 4 3 2 ~~~ s d I W, z.QW MMe ,,m,as- .,..g- .s m as ma.
II I M l?l,5?? w 29 , cease amendmenes that have irreversible consequenma tauch as consideration. % conferees espect that the procedurre for State h permitting an increene in the amount of emuents or rads-consultation will include the followl elements: uuon emitted freni a Enestety or aliswiss a incilie to operate for a til The State would he not of a 'icensee's request for en em '- _1 permi cf time without felt sessay p - those comme, inuu-ing the order in edeemse of a hearing weeld, as a practical nietter. (2) De State womid be advised of the NRC's evaluation of romione the pukils's se base les viene eensidered. In addi-the amesent request, tion, the W would eAen he uneMe to order any sub- @ 'Ilie NRC's deter-A==*'== on whether the li-r,tantial setief as a ce ett af an aner4he4est hearing. Aaserdmsly. cenee=====d===* me hamnads eensideration the condseems inesed the m he esmeiche to tiesse license would he damme= sed wel to and stie NBC's ressene for am=ndeneses which isselse sueh levesessihte essesquences. smoku' is that deeurealemeten would be sethe Stese; ne sameneene mese that to perpees of seguirtus prior==aam and (4) h NRC weeld Essen se and ausr an oppereminity for puhtie asumament hederu a h==== asiendment vided by the State emoisi designeeed to commedt with the and mey take esort, as psesedad in embasatier 4311C140 per mit het emer-pency =an==an=== le se eBeur et Amest
- itemana level of estisen IE) N 303C weeld senho a good Asiek meesempt to sensesit mput into the tiweehold of mammeer ties proposed beense wish the hate prior to leasing eine heemse w amendment anvehus hashh er safety imames. While this At the snees thune, homoser, the presedeses for hate seasinitation subeectaen of time comenrenos spesumont psuserves *er the Osseanis-weisid met:
smo subetemeial ammer the aseise and asnement peers-(Il Ghe alte Stees a right to vues the proposed NBC deseruni-dures to eine esigency need Sur the incomen - : i the tibe h ate a to a en the NRC determi-conferees espost the essenas. * ^ and ti==4me of the p=*=a= to natieshedsse hemmes he r-the feedsey a. =.aaan=a se ages,,eenten,e er t>* area sure===d==r ^ n adegumee opportesday se f arimulate and suhaut me- ^f a o the er, somed=====a= IO her I es amasses to sho IMC We regussonnent la subesetien Scaii) that the Cesnmienien pro-mulpsee criteria for er ahepeneing with prior mesise and sel$g en enheeleg sometaglemi i pubhe essmanent en a '+ that a lisemme emmend-In er aseet insehus no hemorde sensederation reasses the een-eth a state a esade-i c::** sneemt that, winerever praetsemble, the (%=='-e== shoute missent pubheb pek:r meties of, and provide 8er prior pubhc esmaneet era, I aseguhe a very ameh o enke the esi.s.t -
- NBC, h
ta sentent of subensnim emICgiu. the eenforese -t Samme the enroe --,. adessetems" to mw only these rare wiek a essesit esses in whisen humanesee amenen is ie ;=esent the altist-should deern er er an epoemeing reacter. m.e com-a no """'8""*'"' W she essessen atseat the aushorny se roepend to -- _ in-780 86 assesmary to to Amadeus er desueleg af a ~ immuniment abeumes to the puhtie heelsh or endsay by teseeing power ism empenho endsam passeuset to the Aeemese Act or h ^^ ^ " h Aet. And the hammene inns au-eesseses as-guassrv -=== ? shority to teho utmesser aselen is assesmary to rompend to emergen-A cies teseteDag innaniment theuet se the public hoekh and safetFJ Sosties 36 sitoSumens t~ M en e888088888 ha 8'- b sepsiselene ehemid insure that the "Busessency les semidmet se ofSeselpeer30EE cleaselems" under session 12 et the eenfasence speemient sit bases one et oseder slee wiR met esp % hemma has geged is apply for the lacense wemme b (Me6 gg dpr 1* asmenemust in a Anablem. In asher werde, the licensee eheuld metheettesegehe af the emergeney prevision creet-g a lag the laseK. psesent abuses of this the
- N at esaformes se isadopendently assoas the li-to "i
emmesch unnosus tr h as an arr ma aaa= oufficiently in ad-M a i smess dto erdemethes of the facility. b o tosessian 28efthe as i : SeheseMan af to eneheemse agreernent regoiros the as--a-i to for consulting wi40s a State k
- in which es b Busiend en a determinatiest that an d&IM M"
toendaf M as
- ~
' amendseems as the temy involves no signilkant hazard ses de whose a A
s - g i H. R. 23J0-7 temporary operatlag license shall not har the sesertion of such ground in connection with the leemaase of a subsequent final operat. Ing license. Any part to a reem' red purovsnt to section 189
- a. orth final
- heenee, a lbstlity for which.a temporary operating license has andes' subsection b., and any member of the Atomic and I lamaning Board conducting such hearing, shall promptly y the Commission of any inferaation indicatmg that the terms and conditions of the temporary operating license are act being met, or that such terme and conditions are not sunicient to comply with the provisions of peregraph (2) of subsection b.
i "d. The t'a==66: is authorised and Crocted to adopt such administrative remedies as the Commission deems appropriate to t i miairnise the need for la=== ef temporary operating licenses pureaant to this session.. i i "e. The authority to issue new tempera l this section shall empire en December 31, w". rating licenses under l lusa. oesaAftNO UCENoE AasFWattSNT MaAa1NCs Sec.12. (a) Section IN a. of the Ateesic Energy Act of 1954 (42 i i U.S.C. 22NIan le aumended - (1) "(ITener the enheectica designation; and (2) the and thesusf the following new h: "t2XA) step make " 't'l' ^M tive any====d===* to an ahi by the Commission that as< es locaat j hasards ceneideraties, nets.M the pendency b Commission of a request hr a hearing fiwan any peessa. Sech i amendment be loomed and esade immediately edhetiee in I advance of h and esopletism of any required hearing. In determining under seetles whether such amendment involves } no significant hemords -- the Comreission shall cenault w.th the State in which the anniuay levolved is located. In all other respects such==mda a=* ehell meet the requiremente of this Act.
- IBI The Coe=la=== eba8 than once every thirty dere) periodically ht not less frecuently a
notice of any amendmenta issued. or proposed to be as provided in subparagraph (Al. Each such nottee shall include all amendments issued, or proposed i to be issued, since the date of publication of the last such periodie notice. Such notice shall, with respect to each amer 6dment or pro-posed amendraent 0) identify the facility involved; and (iil provide a j brief description of such amendment. Nothing in this subeection shall be construed to delay the e#setive date of any amendment. q "iC)The Commiselon shall, durirg the ninety day period following the effective date of this paragraph, promulgate regulations estab-lishing ti) standarde for determining woether any amendment to an operating license involves ne significant hasards consideratSn; till criteria for providing orl>le opportunity for public comment on any in emergency situations, dispensing with prior actice and reasona such determination. which edteria shall take into account the ex4ency of the need for the amendment involved; and tili> proce-dures for consultation on any such determination with the State in which the facility involved is located.". (b) The authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under M the provisions of the amendment made by subeection tal, to issue and to make immediately effective any amendment to an operating i$ i ji h+I e 1 y.. e. ....cy
i fp- &/ r.
- 2
] w m'-- - ce crovisico was explainec by tre Ccnference g e t-V 2 c a as NI'cws: f ay ~ c_nferees nc*e that the purpose of requiring prior r.otice are aa c;;crtunity for public ccrrent before a license a~end-ert ray td e e'fect, as provided in subsection (2)(C)(ii) fcr l; c' bu+ e urgercy situaticrs, is to alicw at least a mintru-S lese' c' !*1:en input into the *hreshold question of whether s; $e croccied license arendTent involves sitnificant health or 5 'oty is ces. 'abile this sLtsection of the confererce agroe-ert ; reserves fcr *he "crission substantial flexibi?.ity tu i tailor t*( nctice ard ccrrent procedures *0 the esigency of Pe reec for the license acercrent, the ccn'erees excect the ar. tent, place ert and tiring of the notice to be reascnably
- alt h.ed tc alicw residerts of the area surruur dirg %:
facity an adequate c;;cr*.un:ty to ferrulate and surrit reasanted corrents. h The require ent in subsection 2(C)(ii' 0 1t the Comissier Orcrt.igate cri*.eria for prcviding er c'spensinc w.*h prior c': tire and public ccrrent er a prcrcted detert ination that a itcetse acen rt.nt irvcive; rc sigrc 'icant hazath ccr. sideration reflects tre conferees' intent that, wrerece tracticable, the Cc tr'sicr sncui^ cublisF prier r.cr.ict cf. and provide f^r cric
- .at t ic, rent on, sucr a croposed deter
- ration.
- l
- ti-f sused itr; (2)(C;(ii), the ccr'erces
!e m "eeergenCy situation 5" tc erCcrcass Cnly > r ', t p i see mes ir which f rrediate action is necessary to
- f tm
- e midw cr derating of an ccerating corrercial
- {
ev-r The Cctrission's regulaticr,s 3bculd insure that g rergen j si*ustions" exception order sectico 1; of the W .:<'crence g ree ent will rot apply if the litersee has failec
- o ac;1, 'cr **e license onendrent 'r a tinelj 'ashion.
In
- ker wcrds, ite licensee should rot te able tc tale advintac<-
' 'Ne e~ergrcy itself. To prevent abuses of this provisier, 1 the ccnferees excect the Coarission to irdependent'.j as> ass tre liccrsee's retscns fur failure to fi'.s. an acclicaticn W ficiently in advarce o* the trreatened cicsure or ceritirg - ' the fa.cilf*.y. Ccnf. Dep. '.c. 97-EN, 97th Ccog., 2d Sess. , c y,. rs.-L,.
- 1 Naa t) t r
[ h44, ' - " My
. i., u.. -4b /# Phk ~ January 18, 1983 CORRECTION N O T I C-E TO ALL HOLDERS OF SECY-83 REGULAT70NS TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION ON (1) TEMPORARY OPERATING LICENSING AUTHORITY AND (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (THE "SHOLLY A,4ENDMENT") (COMM::SSIONER ACTION ITEM) PLEASE REPLACE PAGE 27 OF ENCLOSURE 3 TO SECY-83-16 WITH THE ATTACHED, REVISED PAGE 27. ATTACHMENT: AS STATED O O THE SECRETARIAT l f21mv7qnu & l
5 50.92 Issuance of amendment. In determining whether an amendment to a license or construction permit will be issued to the applicant, the Comission will be guided by the considerations which govern the issuance of initial licenses or construction permits to the extent applicable and appropriate. If the application involves the material alteration of a licensed facility, a construction permit will be issued prior to the issuance of the amendment to the license. If the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, the Comission will give notice of its proposed action pursuant to i 2.105 of this chapter before acting thereon. The notice will be issued as soon as practicable after the application has been. docketed. The Comission w4ll-detemine may make a final determination pursuant to the procedures in 5 50.91 thataproposedamendbenttoan operating license for a facility licensed under i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or for a tasting facility involves no significant hazards consideration, unless it finds that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any, accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Dated at Washington D.C. this day of , 1983. For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Samuel J. Chilk i Secretary for the Comission .}}