S . HB C . 103—218

PENDINGNUCLEARLEGISLATION

4 . P 103 dBA RING

ndi ng Nuclear Le gisl at ion . FORE THE

M . OMMITTEE ON

CLEAN AI R AND NUCLEAR REGUL ATI ONO F THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUB L ICWORKS

UNI TED STATES SENATE

O NE HUNDRED THIRD CO NGRESSFIRST SESSION

S. 1 1 62

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATI ONS FO R THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM ISSION FO R FI SCAL YEARS 1994 AND 1995, AND FO R

OTHER PURPOSES;

S . 1 165

A BILL TO PROVIDE FO R JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NUCLEA R REGULATORYCOMM I SSION DECISIONS ON PET I T IONS FO R ENFORCEM ENT ACT IONS,AND FO R OTHER PURPOSES; AND

S. 1 166

A BILL T O AM END THE ENERGY REORGANI ZAT ION A CT OF 1974 AND

THE ATOM IC ENERGY A CT OF 1954 T O ENHANCE THE SAFETY AND

SECURI TY OF NUCLEAR POWER FACILIT IES, AND FO R OTHER P UR

POSES

JUNE 30 , 1993

i fix

1 .I

Pr inted for the u se of the Committee on En viron men t a n d P u blimWérks

70-124 W A SHI NGTO N 2 1 993

For sale by the US . Governmen t P rmtmg O ffice

S . HRG . 103—218

PENDINGNUCLEARLEGISLATION

4 . P c. 18A RING

ndi ng nuclear Le g isl at ion .FORE THE

JMMI TTEE ON

CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR REGUL ATI ONO F THE

COMMI TTEE ON

ENVI RONMENT AND PUB L ICWORKS

UNI TED STATES SENATE

O NE HUNDRED THIRD CO NGRESSFI RST SESSION

S . 1 162

A BILL TO AUTHORI ZE AP PROPRIAT IONS FO R THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM ISSION FO R FI SCAL YEARS 1994 AND 1995, AND FO R

OTHER PURPOSES;

S. 1 165

A BILL TO PROVIDE FO R JUDICIA L REVIEW OF NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMM ISSION DECISIONS O N PET IT IONS FO R ENFORCEMENT ACT IONS,AND FO R OTHER PURPOSES; AND

S. 1 166

A BILL TO AM END THE ENERGY REORGAN I ZAT ION A CT OF 1974 AND

THE ATOM IC ENERGY A CT OF 1954 T O ENHANCE THE SAFETY AND

SECURITY OF NUCLEAR POWER FACI LI T I ES, AND FO R OTHER P UR

POSES

JUNE 30 , 1993 m

P r in ted for the u se of the Committee on E n vi ia men t a n d

-

'ks

70—124 W A SHIN GT O N I 1 99 3

For sa le by the US . Governmen t P rin tin g O ffice

COMM ITT EE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKSMAX B AUCUS,

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

GEORGE J . MITCHELL , M a in e

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Je rseyHARRY REID, NevadaB O B GRAHAM , Florida

JOSEPH I . LIEBERMAN , Con n ecticu t

HOWARD M . METZENBAUM , OhioHARRIS WOFFORD, P e n n sylva n iaBARBARA BOX ER, Ca liforn ia

P m L. Scrum, Staff DirectorST EVEN J . SHI M B ERG, M in ority Staff Director a nd Chief Cou nsel

SUB comm 'rEE O N CL EA N A mA ND NUCL EA R REGUL A T I O N

JOSEPH I . LI EBERMAN, Con n ecticu t, Cha irma n

DANI EL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyomin gB O B GRAHAM , Florida LAUCH FAI RCLOTH, North Ca rolin e

HOWARD METZENB AUM , O hio DIRK KEM P THRO NE , I daho

M on ta n a , Cha irma n

JOHN H. CHAFEE , Rhode Islan dALAN K. SI MPSON, Wyomin gDAVE DURENBERGER, M in n esota

JOHN W. WARNER, Virg in ia

ROBERT SMITH, New HampshireLAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolin aDIRK KEMPTHORNE , I daho

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEM ENTSL iebe rma n , Hon . Joseph L , US . Se n a tor from the Sta te of Con n ecticu t

WI TNESSES

M a g a ve rn B ill, Director , Cr itica l M a ss E n e rg y P roject, P u blic Citize n a ecom

pa n ied by James Riccio, Sta ff A ttor n ey , Cr itica l M ass E n e rgy P roject,P u blic Citize n

P repa red sta teme n t

Respon ses to addition a l qu estion s

Se lin , Hon . I va n , Chairma n , Nu cle a r Re g u la tory Commission a ccompa n ied byHon . Ken n eth C. Rog ers, M embe r ; Hon . James R . Cu rtiss, M embe r ; Hon .

Forrest J . Remick, M embe r ; a n dHon . E . Ga il De P la n qu e , M embe rP repa red sta teme n t

Re spon ses to addition a l qu estion s

ADDI T IONAL M ATERIAL

Williams, Da vid 0 , O ffice of I n spector Ge n e ra l, Nu cle a r Reg u la tory Commission , sta teme n t of

P ENDING NUCL EAR L EGI SL A T I O N

WEDNESDAY , JUNE 30 , 1993

US . SENATE ,

COM M I TT EE O N ENVI RONM ENT A ND P UBLI C WORKS,SUB CO M M I 'I 'I ‘EE O N CLEAN A I R A ND NUCLEAR REGULATI ON,

Wa shin g ton ,DC.

The subcommittee met, pur suan t to n otice , a t a m . in room4 06, Dirkse n Se n ate Office Buildin g, Hon . Joseph I . Liebe rman[chairman of the subcommittee] presidin g .

Prese n t: Sen ator s Lieberman , Faircloth a n dKempthor n e .

OPENING STATEM ENT O FHO N. JOSEPH I . LIEBERMAN , U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE O F CONNECTICUTSe n a tor LI EBERM AN . The hea r in g will come to order . Good mor n

in g a n dwe lcome .

Toda y this Subcommitte e is con ductin g a he a r in g on the Nucle a rRegulatory Commission

’s proposed a uthor iza tion bill for fisca l yea r1994 a n d fisca l yea r 1995, a s we ll a s r e la ted legisla tive proposa ls .

The NRC will testify toda y a bout some of its proposed amen dmen ts to the Atomic En ergy A ct which seek to cla rify a n d, in someca ses, expand ce rtain en forcemen t a uthor itie s .

O n e of the other proposa ls we will take te stimon y on today is a

bill tha t Sen a tor Ba ucus a n d I ha ve in troduced tha t would providea r ight to r equest the NRC to a ddre ss significa n t sa fety issues . I t

would a lso provide for judicia l review of NRC decision s n ot to ta kea n y action in r espon se to such r eque sts .

The Con g ress has n ot e n a cted an author iza tion bill for the NRCsin ce 1984 a n d I hope tha t we ca n revive the a uthor ization processin this Con gr ess because it provides a n exce llen t opportun ity formember s of this Subcommitte e , the full Committee on En vironmen t a n d Public Works , the Con gress, and indeed the public, toreview the major regula tory issue s fa cin g the NRC, a n d for us inCon gress to provide guidan ce on the se issues . I t also e n a ble s theCon gr e ss to fin e tun e the Atomic En e rgy A ct which , of cour se , is

the gove r n in g sta tute for the NRC .

The major issue s fa cin g the NRC a re evolving a s the n uclear indu stry itse lf evolve s . On ly four n ew plan ts a r e still I n the lice n sin gproce ss . Nuclea r powe rpla n ts in this Coun try a re a ll gettin g olde ra n d n on e a re be in g built to r epla ce them . As n uclea r pla n ts a g e ,the NRC must dea l with issue s such a s the degr a da tion of n uclea requipme n t, licen se r e n ewal , decommission in g, and de con tamin ation . These a re n ot easy issue s a n d I wa n t to r eview whethe r theNRC ha s the resource s to a ddr e ss them a n d whethe r the public

2

health, safety, a n d e n viron me n t will be protected as pa rt of thatprocess .

Addition ally, in a diffe re n t a rea, last Ma r ch a t a hear ing beforethis Subcommittee it became clear— to me , a t least— that the cu r

re n t NRC regu lation s a re in adequate to protect n uclear powe rplants against te rrorists usin g vehicle s to carry explosives into apowe rpla n t. A t that time , I urged the NRC to stre n gthen its re

qu iremen ts and the NRC agreed to un dertake a r eview . Now, the

NRC staff has proposed to the Commission that the r egulation s beame n ded to require a ddition al prote ction s . I

’d like to hear more details about those proposals toda y . Obviously, in this climatehe ighte n ed since the hearing in March— we must do everythin g weca n to assure that we

’

re protectin g our se lves from terror ists .

I’

ve also asked ou r witn esse s to comme n t specifically on tha t legisla tion whi ch Se n a tor Baucus and I ha ve in troduced allowing forjudicial review in the Un ited States Court of Appe als of a decisionby the NRC to de n y a reque st by a citize n to take en forceme n ta ction on a significant safety issue . I ’m pa rticula r ly in te rested incomme n ts on whethe r the standa rd in the bill str ikes the appropria te balance betwee n , ou the on e han d, en sur in g tha t the NRC con

side r s a n d re spon ds to significa n t safety issues raised by membe r sof the public and, on the other hand, avoidin g un n ecessary proceedin gs a n d litiga tion over issue s which a re n ot significant.

Se n ator Ba ucus a n d I in troduced this bill because of complaintsthat the re is an imbalance betwee n the public’s ability to pa rticipate in the Atomic En e rgy A ct a n d the public’s ability to pa rticipate in the e n for ceme n t of ou r othe r e n viron me n tal laws . The

Clea n Wate r A ct, the Clea n A ir A ct, the Safe Dr in king Wate r A ct,the Super fun d law, the Resource Con serva tion a n d Recovery A ct,a n d the Toxic Substance s Con trol A ct all ha ve citize n suit provision s . I n a citize n suit un der specified circumstances , a person ca n

su e a Fede ral agen cy or a pr ivate e n tity regula ted un de r the statu te , in orde r to bring that e n tity in to complian ce with the sta tute ,

reg ulation s, or pe rmit te rms , and for pe n alties for n on complia n cewith the law.

The Atomic En e rgy A ct ha s n o such citize n suit provision a n d Isuppose tha t’s n ot surpr ising be ca use the A ct was e n acted in 1954 ,lon g before the re was thought of citize n suits and e n viron me n tallaws . B u t, those action s did become common place startin g in the

1970’

s and they a re n ow a we ll e stablished and important part of

ou r system of e n viron me n tal en forceme n t . Citize n suits provide asupplemen t to gove rn me n tal a ction to e n sure tha t the laws a re

a dequa te ly e n for ced . I remembe r from my time as Attor n ey Ge n e ra l of Con n ecticut that we con side red those who we re filing citize nsuits to be allie s— in fa ct, we called them

“ pr iva te Attorn eys Ge ne r a l”

.

The bill we ha ve introduced, Se n a tor Ba ucus a n d I , is a targetedapproach . While e n forceme n t lawsuits a re n ot allowed by citize n saga in st a n uclea r powe rpla n t O pe r a tor or othe r fa cility lice n sed bythe NRC, the bill would a llow pe rson s to pe tition the NRC to br in gsuch a n a ction ,

and judicial review of the age n cy’

s dec ision of

de n ia l of such a pe tition .

3

We in troduced the bill to see if we ca n upda te the AtomicEn e rgy A ct in this respect. I hope ou r witn esses will focus on tha tquestion .

Un fortun a te ly, the n uclea r in dustry will n ot be te stifyin g toda y .

As I un de rsta n d it, n o Chief Executive Office r of a utility wasa va ilable on this occa sion , which I r eg ret, bu t I will ce rta in lyr eview a n dwe lcome a n y wr itte n comme n ts submitted by r epr e se n ta tives of the in dustry .

I we lcome Chairma n Se lin a n d the membe rs of the Commission .

I have bee n in formed tha t this is Commission e r Curtiss’ last day a s

a membe r of the Commission . We tha n k him for his se rvice a n d

wish him we ll . This Committee ha s a ce rta in pate r n a listic pr ide inhis on goin g in volveme n t in this a re a a n d we wi sh him we ll in then ext cha pter .

Chairman Se lin , it’

s a ll your s .

STATEM ENT O F HO N. IVAN SELIN, CHAIRM AN, NUCLEAR REGUL A T O RY COMM ISS ION ACCOM PANIED B Y , HO N. KENNETH C.

ROGERS , M EM BER ; HO N. JAM ES R . CURTISS , M EM BER ; HO N.

FORREST J . REM ICK, M EM BER ; AND HO N. E . GAIL DE PLANQ UE ,

M EM BERM r . SELI N . Than k you ve ry much , M r . Cha irman .

The NRC we lcome s your in itia tive to revive the a uthor iza tionproce ss . We thin k, as you said , tha t it wi ll be a ve ry use ful vehicleboth for a ir in g issues a n d for gettin g more con crete guida n ce fromthe legi slatur e . We also a ppr ecia te your in te rest a n d support forou r a uthor iza tion a n d leg isla tive proposa ls a n d look forwa rd to

workin g with you as they progress through Con gr ess . As you re

quested in your lette r of in vita tion a n d in your ope n in g rema rks ,we ha ve provided wr itte n commen ts a n d I will comme n t or a lly on

S. I 165 , the Nuclea r En forcemen t Accoun ta bility A ct of 1993 .

Before descr ibin g ou r budget, we would like to provide a n ove r a llpe r spective on ou r pr in cipa l programs a n d expla in how we a r e

using ou r resource s to fulfill ou r sta tutory mission .

Fir st of a ll, about 55 pe rce n t of ou r budget request is dir ected tothe con duct of ou r regula tory progr am for comme rcial n ucle a r r e

actor s . The 109 rea ctors cur ren tly lice n sed to O pe ra te in the Un itedSta te s ge n e rate about 21 pe rce n t of the Na tion

’s e lectr icity . Ove rthe past seve r a l ye a rs , a s the se pe rforman ce in dica tor cha rts show,

the ope ra tion al safety pe rforma n ce of US . powe rplan ts ha s con tinu ed to improve . I n ge n e ra l , the bette r pe rforme r s a ppea r to ha verea ched pla teaus whe re cur re n t per forma n ce leve ls a re close to

reason able expecta tion s , bu t it’

s the poore r re a ctor s who la gbehi n d— in some case s, sign ifica n tly behin d— in pe rforma n ce . The

implica tion of this is tha t it a ppe a rs tha t the be st way for us towork with the in dustry to reduce ove r a ll rea ctor r isk is to con ee ntr a te ou r efforts on the poore r pe rforme rs , to br in g them up to theleve ls alrea dy r eached by the bette r pe rforme r s . A la rge amoun t ofou r effort is goin g to improvin g pe rforma n ce measures pla n t byplant to make sure that we ca n target the resources whe re the r iskproba bility calls for it .

Turn in g to secur ity as you , M r . Cha irma n , discussed in yourope n in g stateme n t, you a re awa re tha t the prese n t thre a t state

4

men t doe s n ot addre ss the u se of a vehicle or a vehi cle bombagainst a n uclear reactor . O n Jun e 24 , the staff recomme n ded thatexpedited rule making be undertake n to modify the de sign basisthr ea t to include prote ction against malevolen t u se of vehicles a t

n uclear rea ctors . To summa rize slightly, the three key points inthi s recommen dation we re . tha t the de sign basis threa t itse lf bemodified to include a land vehi cle for the tr a n sport of pe rson n e l orexplosive s; tha t the appropr iate rule , whi ch is 10 CFR part 73 ,pa ragraph 55, be changed to r eflect the change in the design ba sisthreat and to allow alte r n ative secur ity measure s whe n establishin g stand-off distan ce s; and to unde rtake expedited rule making toimpleme n t the se changes , allowin g a t least 30 days for public commen t, which seems to us to be a fair compromise betwee n makingsure that the public ha s a formal cha n ce to comme n t on the rulecha n ges and providing time so that we can quickly make the

cha n ges . The Commission ha s approved the staff’ s recomme n da

tion s .

The O lde r n uclear powe rplants ope rating in this Coun try a re

fa cing expiration of the ir or iginal 4 0-year ope rating lice n ses andon e of the key issues for industry is to know the NRC

’

s requiremen ts for license ren ewal up fron t, in orde r tha t industry canmake reason able dete rmina tion s rega rdin g whethe r they should g ofor license re n ewal or if they should g o for some othe r way toobtain r eplaceme n t powe r .

O u r staff has deve loped a process for impleme n tin g the lice n ser e n ewa l rule , which focuses on the e ffe ctive ma n ageme n t of agin gdur in g the re n ewal te rm , bu t takes full a dva n tag e of existing mainte n a n ce progr ams . I n other words , in most cases the kind of agin gwe

’

re worr ied about in the last 20 yea rs is similar to the agin g thatoccurs in the fir st 4 0 years and if the re were effective programs thefir st 4 0 years , we expect to give ve ry high we ight to the se pro

grams . Howeve r , this process represe n ts an approa ch to impleme n

ta tion which wa s n ot expr essly addressed a t the time that the rulewas promulga ted , so the Commission has ma de a vailable to the

public seve ral pa pe rs detailing the staff’s proposed implemen tationa pproa ch and some views as to wha t change s in the rule ha ve to bema de or might ha ve to be ma de in order to effect the se cha n ge s .

We’

ll soon schedule a key workshop with all con cern ed parties as apre lude to e stablishin g the clea r regula tory r ecomme n da tion s .

As fa r as the future rea ctor s g o, as you we ll kn ow, we’

ve e sta blished a process to r eview future n uclea r r eactor designs in orde r toma ke it possible , on the on e ha n d, to re solve safety a n d e n vironme n tal issue s be fore r a the r tha n afte r the start of n ucle a r powe rc

gln

l

str u ction a n d, furthe rmore , a ddre ss de sign safety issue s ge n e r ic y .

We’ve rece ived four design ce rtifica tion s a pplication s un de r this

n ew proce ss . The first two application s a re for evolution ary ve r

sion s of existing light wa te r re a ctor de signs . The NRC staff hascompleted dr aft safety evalua tion reports on both of these evolu

tion a ry designs . T he re a re a n umbe r of ope n issue s which we a n d

the ve n dors a r e workin g to re solve , bu t a lmost all of these ope nissue s deal with the n ew con cept of a cceptan ce cr ite r ia , so wewould kn ow be fore con struction bega n wha t it would take to sa tisfythe Commission tha t the de sign s we re prope r ly impleme n ted .

5

There were ve ry few question s with the desig n s themse lves . As fa ras the othe r two a pplica tion s for n ove l light wa te r reactor designs— the so-called pa ssive r ea ctor s— a n in itia l r eview of ea ch of

the two has begun .

Comin g ba ck to ou r budget, ou r budget con tin ues to provide tightbu t adequa te r esource s to deve lop the in depe n de n t in forma tion a n d

an alyses n ece ssa ry to support ou r sa fety decision s on the se n ew

a n d un ique de signs .

Turn in g to the ma te r ia l a rea , a bout 15 pe rce n t O f ou r budget request is devoted to e n sur in g the sa fe disposa l of n ucle a r wa ste a n d

the sa fe u se a n d tr a n sport of n ucle a r ma te ria ls . We’

ve asked for a

sma ll in cre a se in this progr am , pr ima r ily to impleme n t NRC’

s n ew

re spon sibilities for ce rtifyin g the ga seous diffusion ur a n ium e n r ichme n t pla n ts to be ope r a ted by the Un ited Sta te s En r ichme n t Cor

por a tion . Up un til n ow, those costs ha ve bee n bor n e within ou r

ove ra ll ba se a n d spre a d to othe r lice n sees, bu t sta rtin g July 1 , theUn ited Sta te s En r ichme n t Corpor a tion will be billed for these dir ectly se rvices .

O n e importa n t topic , a s you poin ted ou t, sir , wa s the decommission in g of sites . I t

’

s obvious tha t we must be a ble to e n sure tha ton ce a n operatin g facility complete s its useful life tha t the site willbe proper ly clean ed up . Thus , de commission in g a n d de con tamin ation a re a n in tegral part of ou r lice n sin g proce ss . I be lieve tha t r ece n tly , basica lly in the last yea r , tha t we ha ve become quite effec

tive in commun ica tin g to licen see s a n d the public ou r expecta tion sfor time ly a n d effective remedia tion O f site s .

O n e pa rt of this proce ss is to set some sta n da rds in a dva n ce so

that people will kn ow to wha t degree they ha ve to r emedia te thesites in order to retur n them to ge n er a l u se . We a re con ducting a n

e n ha n ced pa rticipa tory rule ma kin g to esta blish the se sta n da rds .

This n ove l rule ma kin g in clude s workshops aroun d the coun try inwhich NRC, EP A , in dustry , a n d g rass roots e n viron me n ta l groupshave come to the same table a n d ha ve hadwha t I thin k a ll pa rticipa n ts ha ve con side red so fa r to be fruitful discussion s of the difficult Issue s a ssocia ted with settin g the se sta n da rds .

Movin g to the medica l progr am— this is on e of the most importa n t use s of by-product ma te r ia l— tha t is, the u se O f by-product ma

te r ia l for medical dia gn osis a n d medica l the ra py . O u r program is

directed towa rd assur in g tha t in a ddition to worker a n d publicsa fety tha t the pa tien t will r e ce ive the dose O f r a dia tion or r adioa c

tive ma te r ia l tha t is prescr ibed by the physicia n . This is a big a n d

complica ted prog ram tha t ca use s us ma n y he a da ches, to be fr a n k .

As we look a t the progr am a n d the improveme n ts tha t ha ve be e nimpleme n ted , I would like to n ote tha t the NRC

’

s jur isdictioncove r s, a t the most, 25 per ce n t O f r a dia tion the r a py tr e a tme n t

tha t the vast ma jor ity O f people who n eed r a dia tion ther a py r ece ivethe se from device s tha t don ’

t u se r a dioa ctive isotope s a n d a r e n ot

subject to ou r r egula tion .

I t’

s fair to ask if it r e a lly ma kes se n se to con tin ue the existin gscheme whe re we pu t a la rge amoun t of ou r limited r esour ce s in toa re la tive ly sma ll pa rt of the ther a py a r e a , a n d if this is the be stway to a chieve the goa l of prote ction of the public . SO , we

’

ve bee n

g ivin g some thought to wa ys to a ddr e ss these Issue s .

6

I n thi s regard, we’ve created a task force to examine , amon g

othe r question s , the prope r allocation of re spon sibility amon g Fede ral a n d State regulatory bodie s . We plan to provide the Con gre sswith a n inte rim report on ou r efforts to come to grips with theseissues by August 6 . Thi s report will basically lay ou t the option sand the information tha t is n eeded— it will n ot come to a con clusion as to what ought to be don e . The NRC is on ly a small part ofthis , so even if we decided tha t a diffe ren t leve l O f jurisdiction iscalled for , tha t would be the begin n ing of a lon g process to rectifythe situation .

Turn ing to manageme n t support, a bout 30 perce n t of ou r budgetis involved in the day-to-day manageme n t of the agen cy— hou sekee ping, and some rathe r n ove l programs . Eve n in this a rea, weha ve assumed significan t n ew re spon sibilitie s which a re puttingg rea te r pressure on ou r available re sour ce s . For instance , the NRCparticipa te s in a n umbe r of in te rn ation al n uclear safety and safeguards a ctivities, of which the most n otable deal with the formerSoviet Un ion , following up on the Lisbon , Mun ich, and Vancouvermeetings .

I n addition to n uclea r powerpla n t safety, there a re health anden viron men tal challe n ge s and other pote n tial ta rgets for future a idin the a rea of radiolog ical health and safety in the forme r SovietUn ion . The NRC is pla ying what I think is an important role inthe deve lopme n t of a much n eeded integrated pla n for overall assista n ce there .

A t the same time , we a r e witn essing the growth of commercialn uclea r power in Asian n ations such as Japan, Taiwan, and SouthKorea, where U .S . vendors a re competing active ly for reactor sales .

We’

re see ing the begin ning of a n ew program in Indon esia . The

NRC ha s techni cal informa tion exchange agreeme n ts with 27 differe n t coun tr ies , including the se . Most rece n tly, we have con cludedan agr eeme n t with In done sia and re n ewed an existing agreeme n t

with Chin a . The se agr eeme n ts a re pr imar ily to he lp fore ign nuclea r regulatory organization s to create a regula tory e n viron me n tsimilar to the on e that we have he re in the United States .

The poin t that you alluded to indirectly, sir , is the n eed for ope nn ess and credibility in all of ou r activities . He re we fee l that theNRC has ma de gr eat strides in keeping the public informed a boutwha t we a re doing and why we a r e doin g it, of ou r successe s andshortcomin gs, n ot on ly in the industry bu t in ou r own NRC ope ration . We have solicited the participation of the public in manyareas and have be n efited from the ir con tr ibution s . As indicatedear lie r , the NRC curr ently has an e n hanced participa tory rulemakin g effort unde r way to e stablish radiological crite ria for decommission ed ma te rial site s . We have scheduled a workshop n extmon th to de al with the petition s . We

’

re ope n ing some e n

forceme n t con fe re n ces to the public, we con duct ope n mee tings todiscuss each licensee

’s pe rforma n ce assessme n t, and region al ad

min istr a tors n ow hold quarte r ly br iefin gs for the public and themedia . Perhaps eve n more amazing is that we

’

re startin g to lookforward to the se inste a d of dr eading them .

We n ow come , sir , to the que stion of legisla tive proposa ls . We a p

precia te your inte re st and the committee’

s in te rest in ou r seve nlegisla tive recomme n da tions . The wr itte n stateme n t describe s each

of the seve n . The on e on which most que stion s ha ve a r ise n a n d

which I ’ll just touch on br iefly is ou r requested amen dme n t to the

Atomic En e rgy A ct, which would pe rmit the NRC to obta in a judicia lly a pproved a dmin istr a tive sea rch wa r ra n t to in spect the pr emises of a n on lice n see who is a supplie r to the regula ted n ucle a r indu stry . Requir in g the u se O f a subpoe n a process , a s we n ow ha ve todo, poses a high r isk of de struction of evide n ce , sin ce n otice a n d O p

portu n ity to con test the subpoe n a must be gi ve n . The a dmin istr ative search wa r r a n t a uthor ity is n eeded to e n sure tha t supplie r s toNRC lice n se e s will n ot be able to de n y a ge n cy in ve stiga tors a cce ssto importa n t in forma tion .

M r . Cha irma n , in your in vita tion a n d in your sta teme n t, you

asked the Commission’s views on S . 1 165 , the bill which you co

spon sored with Sen a tor Ba ucus to dea l with judicia l review of e n

forceme n t de cision s a n d the petition s . We ha ve read your re

ma rks in the Con gression a l Record a n d applaud the open -min deda pproa ch tha t you took both in the r ecord a n d in your stateme n t

in troducin g the bill— the way to kick off me a n in g ful debate on n ot

just the question of the legislation itse lf bu t in crease the citizenparticipation in the safety proce ss . We agree with the importa n ceof en forceme n t petition s . As I me n tion ed, we ha ve scheduleda workshop on July 28 to se e how we ca n ma ke the process mor e

e ffective a n d, most importa n tly, more credible . We thin k this process provide s opportun itie s to in volve citizen s . I t

’

s clea r tha t eve nthough we thin k it works quite we ll from the hea lth a n d sa fetypoin t of view, it doesn

’

t a ccomplish its othe r objectives . B u t, fr a n kly , we don

’

t thin k legislation is like ly to produce significa n t effects ,a lthough it will produce sign ifica n t costs .As you n oted, in Heckler v . Cha n ey, the Supreme Court clear ly

stated its be lief that regula tory agen cie s a re du e de fe re n ce in exer

cisin g the ir e n for cemen t discretion , a bsen t abdica tion of r espon sibility on the age n cy

’s pa rt . The Commission’

s tr ea tme n t of

petition s me r its that defe re n ce . T he sta ff’ s decision s a r e carefully

re a son ed a n d car efully ju stified— in fact, they’

r e quite exte n sive lydocumen ted . They a t time s a ct on the petition er ’s reque st, n ot on lygra n tin g some perce n tage of the r equest, bu t ta kin g in depe n de n ta ction s tha t a re con sisten t with the objective s of the petition . To be

ve ry fr a n k a bout it, the Commission review of a staff de cision is

absolute ly n ot a rubbe r stamp , thus a ssur in g that staff de cision sa re en tered in to reason ably a n d ca re fully . Before the Supreme

Court decision in Heckle r , the Commission was n eve r r eve r sed inthe ten or so r equests for judicia l r eview . Besides, the r e is both thecare with which petition s a re trea ted a n d the un like lihood tha t retur n in g to judicia l review would, in fact, ever lea d to a differ e n tsafety outcome .

I t’

s from this r ecord as much as ou r evaluation of ou r own per

forma n ce tha t we be lieve tha t the n et effect of the bill would be toin cur costs without a n y substa n tive diffe re n ce in outcome s . I n yourremarks , you discussed a t some len gth the role of citize n suits, thea bse n ce of citizen suits in the area of a tomic e n e rgy a n d, the r efore ,

the n eed to leve l the playin g fie ld . You might expect that ou r viewO f the history is a little bit differe n t— we don

’

t thin k tha t the ab

sen ce of suits wa s beca use the Atomic En e rgy A ct is old; it’

s beename n ded many times— we thin k tha t this admittedly exception al

8

situation where citize n s cannot directly su e NRC-lice n sed companies for safety is more than balanced by the equally exception aldegree of inspe ction that the NRC pe rforms on its licensee s . We

View citize n suits as a secon d-best attempt to make up for the

sparsen e ss of inspection by othe r agen cies . The bargain that Congr e ss ha s implicitly— a n d, in fact, almost explicitly made— was toprovide a pe rvasive ly regulated area in atomic en ergy for atomice n e rgy licensee s in return for free ing the licensee s from citizen andjudicial regula tion .

I n short, the n et affect, M r . Chairma n , of your a n d Se n a tor Baucus

’

3 bill would be to single ou t NRC for exclusion from the cove ra g e of Heckler v . Cha n ey . We don

’

t thin k ou r record calls for such

Eple

lcia l treatmen t, and the refore we must respe ctfu lly O ppose the

You specifically asked about the standards and be fore I comme n ton that I

’

d like to sa y that the standard I n your bill I S n ot the kindof standa rd that

’s i n Heckler v . Cha n ey . Whe n they say a bill 15 n ot

reviewable un less the re is a n objective standard— they’

re talkingabout procedural standards , so the judge s can ta ke a look to see ifthe age n cy has carried ou t its own procedure s . The standard thatyou have se t ou t in your draft I s the substantive standard— it sayshere a re the kinds of things, from a safety poin t of view, tha t

should be looked a t. We have n o problem with the standards thatyou

’

ve se t ou t. On a more techn ical n ature , we would n ot like thereview ability to ju st be a ble to say that the petition should begranted be cause in ma n y case s petition s ask for remedie s that a r efa r in excess of the problem a t ha n d . So, even if the re were reviewability, that bill should just call for the NRC to have the hearing,n ot n ece ssarily to grant the remedy . That’s a small technical point.

I n summa ry, we un derstand the reason for the bill . We thinkthat we did ope rate for years in an area of judicial review abilitya n d the re we re very few cases taken to court . We don

’

t thin k there

would be a pra ctical impact in the sense of more petition sbe in g foun d valid and there would be somewhat of an increase incosts just to han dle the review points .

Tur n ing to ou r FY 1994 —1995 a uthorization , ou r fiscal yea r 1994budget reque st is for $54 7 7 million — a n increase of on ly million above the fiscal ye a r 1993 fig u re— less than a two pe r ce n t increa se . O u r FY 1995 budget is le ss than a on e perce n t in crea se overou r reque st for FY 1994 . The reason for the se small increases istha t we ll be fore submitting ou r requests to O M B , we un de rtook a n

agg ressive , thorough r eview of ou r programs and produced astre amlined budget request a t le ss than the ra te of inflation , eve na s we un de rtake addition al re spon sibilitie s . So, we really a r e tryin gto do a little bit more with a little bit less , in real te rms . We

’

re

budgetin g in creased r esource s to kee p pa ce with indu stry activitiesassociated with r e a ctor lice n se r en ewal and the sa fety reviews associa tedwith ce rtifyin g n ew powe r rea ctor de signs .

I n a ddition , we have progr amma tic in cr e a se s n eeded to fundsome of ou r n ew re spon sibilitie s such as regula ting the Un itedState s En r ichme n t Corporation ’s fa cilitie s as required by the

En e rgy Policy A ct. Howeve r , we foun d tha t by followin g the policytha t I di scussed earlie r , we could make offsettin g reduction s I n cu r

re n t O pe ration s and I n re a ctor re se a rch without compromisin g ou r

9

safety respon sibility . I n short, we’ve tr ied to sta y a step ahe a d of

eve n ts and by so doin g we thin k tha t we’ve bee n able to un de rta ke

addition al respon sibilities in the in vestmen t of those programs tha ta ffe ct the future while slightly reducin g ou r budget in rea l te rms .

We will con tin ue to do a ll of this in a tra n spare n t ma n n e r tha t facilita tes public un de rsta n din g of ou r regula tory proce ss .

M r . Cha irma n , this con cludes my or a l sta teme n t . My fe llow Commission er s and I will be ve ry pleased to a n swe r the question s of thesubcommittee .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . Than k you , Cha irma n Se lin . I presume tha tthe other Commission e r s have n o O pe n in g sta teme n ts to ma ke a t

this time , a n d I apprecia te your stateme n t.

I we lcome my colleague , Se n a tor Kempthor n e .

I’

ll begin with a n open in g roun d a n d the n I’ ll be ha ppy to tur n it

over to Se n a tor Kempthorn e .

L et me just comme n t br iefly a n d say that I a ppre cia te the effortof the sta ff in expa n din g the regulation s rega rdin g ou r fea r s a boutte r ror ism a t n ucle a r pla n ts . I a ppr eciate ve ry much tha t the Commission ha s a ccepted those re comme n da tion s a n d I thin k tha t theyshould give the public a n d those who work a t n ucle a r powe rpla n tsan in crea sed se n se of secur ity , so I tha n k you ve ry much for that .

L et me begin with the whole question of judicia l review of the

de n ials O f e n forcemen t petition s . I app r e cia te the spir it in whichyou respon ded . My open in g que stion here is whethe r the re is a cu r

re n t sta n da rd for determinin g whether to gra n t a petition ?M r . SELIN . Not in the se n se of Heckler v . Cha n ey . Rega rdle ss, we

have substa n tive guida n ce to the sta ff a n d if you r ea lly wa n t tosumma r ize , wha t it come s down to on e is lookin g a t the petition to

see if the r e is a complia n ce issue , a black a n dwhite sta teme n t tha t

the re is re a son to be lieve tha t the lice n see is n ot complyin g e ithe r

with ou r regula tion s or the provision s of his lice n se a n d the n , I’

llg o even furthe r a n d say tha t if you see a health a n d safety issuethere , eve n beyon d complian ce , do somethin g a bout it— tha t

’

s theguida n ce tha t we

’ve given to the staff. I t’s n ot a n a r row, lega listicr eview of the petition — it goe s beyon d tha t— if the petition has

r a ised a n issue , eve n though the lice n see may be in complete com

plia n ce with all the rules , if the re is a r isk in volved, we follow upon the r isk .

The sta n dard that’s set in Heckler v . Cha n ey has more to do withif the age n cy or statute has set up a set of procedures tha t a r e

pretty clear tha t say tha t if you comply with the procedur es, youmust give the people a hear in g, otherwise you do n ot . We don

’

t

have such a set of procedural stan da rds . The effect of those sta n dards is to change the judicial r eview from a substa n tive r eview to a

procedura l review . The defe re n ce tha t’s given to these age n cie s is a

substa n tive defe r en ce a n d, r eally, if you’

ve r ea d a n y of thesepetition s a n d the a n swe r s , I thin k you

’ll be struck by how thoroughthey a re , by how ca r efully r esea r ched they a re , the re lative time lin e ss . I n n o sen se could they be r ea d a s abusin g the defe r en ce thatthe courts offe r .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . So, a lthough the re’s n ot a forma l stan da rd ,

you’

d say tha t there’s a set of g uide lin es, as you

’ve suggested, tha tguide s your con side r a tion of petition s?

10

M r . SELI N . The re ’s substantive guide lin es to the staff in reviewin g the procedures . The re a re n ot procedural guide lin eswhere they check these off and if you have more yeas than n ays,you have to give the people a hear in g . O n the advice of counse lI’

ve rea d the O pin ion decision s myse lf and the n I ’ve con sulted, ofcour se , with ou r coun se l— and it

’

s pretty clear that the discussionof stan dards in Heckler v . Cha n ey a re the ir procedural standards .

I n othe r words , can a judge look a t these a n d n ot se con d-gue ss theage n cy in tha t the agen cy is n ot followin g its own procedures,the refore the court should step in .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . So, a re the standa rds tha t a re the re wr itte nor a re they ju st ge n e rally un derstood in the ag e n cy? O n e of the

question s , from a devil’s a dvoca te poin t of view, if the re is n o wr it

te n standa rd , the n how does the NRC know whethe r or n ot to

g ra n t the petition ? That’s a que stion tha t on e might ask.

M r . SELI N . The r e a re some n on bindin g docume n ts , policy stateme n ts , et cete ra, to whi ch you may be refe rr ing . Let’s say the que stion is on e of health and safety— let’s look a t the health and safetyquestion s . The se range from a physicia n to a n uclear powerpla n t. I t

does n ot seem , to us, appropr ia te or n ece ssa ry to have more con

crete sta n dar ds . B u t, that’s exactly the kind of question tha t we

in te n d to r eview with the ge n e ral public a t the e n d of July in ou r

e n forceme n t con fe re n ce .

L e t me make this perfectly clea r . We be lieve that it’

s ve ry important tha t this process be more credible tha n it is toda y, to be pe rfectly fra n k about it. We think it

’

s importa n t that the public see sthis as a real O pportun ity to participate in safety issue s in regulation of existing powe rpla n ts . We

’ve been give n e n ormous a uthor ityand de fe re n ce and we don ’

t wish to abuse it, so there’

s n o questiontha t eve n though we thin k tha t from a pure health a n d safetypoin t of View the proce ss works pretty we ll, it

’

s n ot a chievin g thecredibility that it ought to be .

We ca n look ba ck a n d see , a t place s , whe re we’

ve r u n it in for

mally in a way that should be formal . For insta n ce , in the Yan keeRowe ca se , the Commission in te rve n ed to the poin t of sayin g,

“We

don’

t wa n t to just work on paper— we want to g et the people in , sit

down a t the table , a n d hear wha t they say .

”We don ’

t ha ve a n y in

te rn al rule s for the director in vitin g in the pa rties— it’s all don e O n

pa pe r . O n e of the que stion s tha t would be looked a t in thiscon fe re n ce is, un de r ce rta in circumsta n ce s , should the processbe O pe n ed up to a llow wha t, in your la n guage— n ot in ou r language , bu t in ge n e ral la n g uage— is a hea r in g . Not cross examination a n d discove ry , bu t people be in g able to trade views in fron t ofthe safety people .

Se con d is the a re a you brought u p—some more formal guidanceon how they should be tr ea ted . Those will be all on the table a t ou r

con fe re n ce .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . Will you con side r the question of judicialreview a t tha t workshop?M r . SELI N . The guide lin e s do n ot exclude it, the re fore if any of

the pa rticipa n ts wa n t to br in g it up, they ca n .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . I wa n t to re a d a se n te n ce from Heckle r v .

Cha n ey .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

12

ity , a n d they didn’

t say we didn’

t follow ou r procedures— they justsaid ,

“

if that we re the case ,

”a n d as I said, tha t

’s in Heckler v .

Cha n ey as“ absent a bdication of respon sibility .

Se n ator LI E BERM AN . So, the standard the r e is so extreme that itha sn

’

t really hadmuch of a n effect on the way you’

ve don e .

M r . SELIN . Tha t’s the standa rd in the third se n se— the first sen seis the substantive procedure , the secon d is the in te r n al procedures ,and the third is a review of the r e sult to be so ou t of line as to saythat we

’

re abdicating ou r respon sibility a n d there’

s a burde n of

proof on that.

I just looked back a t the history before Heckler v . Cha n ey and it’

s

my be lief that the re were two que stion s . O n e is how didwe do the nand the answe r is that we did very we ll, if you keep score . And thesecon d is, is there reason to be lieve that sin ce the Supreme Courtdecision came ou t, that ou r director s have become more cavalie r inthe ir opinion s tha n they were before? I n other words , would youg et some kind of preemptive or dete r re n t effect by ha ving this? Ithink the answe r is clea r ly “

n o”to both question s— we ca n

’

t see a

diffe ren ce in the quality . The Commission is, in effect, the reviewboard of the staff and we a re a lot tougher tha n a n y court would beon ou r staff. The quality is there . The law would n ot kill us or a n ythin g, I just don

’

t see tha t it would really lea d to any substa n tiveimprovemen t.

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . We should con tin ue this dialog . This , like so

man y othe r things is a question of how you look a t it— from whichpe rspective . You ’ve indicated that the NRC should n ot be the on lyagen cy whose enforceme n t discretion is reviewable . If you look a t itfrom the point of view of the other en viron me n tal laws and thea cce ss to citize n suits , the NRC is the exception . I un dersta n d we

’

re

talking n ot quite a bout apples a n d orange s , bu t a bout differe n tpa rts of the proce ss .

M r . SELI N . We ha ve 100 pe rce n t presen ce on powerplants, wehave 5 or 10 year re n ewal on licen se s , so citize n s have every oppor

tu n ity , on ma te rial lice n se s , to pa rticipa te in the process . I thin kthe system is pretty good, bu t the big problem is tha t it

’

s n ot credible e n ough and tha t’s whe re we have to work on it.

Sen a tor LI E BERM AN . OK . We ll , I look forward to hearin g aboutthe workshop and con tin uin g with this discussion . This is somethin g tha t Se n a tor Baucus a n d I a r e in te re sted in .

Se n ator Kempthorn e .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . Thank you , M r . Chairma n .

Chairma n Se lin , it’

s n ice to see you again .

If Con gre ss we re succe ssful in pa ssin g legislation which wou ldmake the petition s judi cially reviewa ble , wha t kin d of r e

source implications would tha t ha ve on the NRC?M r . SELI N . The on ly thi n g I can do is g o ba ck and see wha t ha p

pe n ed be fore the ca se . Normally, we would ha ve on e or two ca se scome be fore a court . We n eed to do the same homework for the dire ctor ’s decision tha t we would to g o to court , so the a ctua l , basicre se a rch , we be lieve , to be fr a n k, would be n egligible . The diffe re n ce would be to actua lly g o to court , a rgue the ca se s, et cete r a .

I have n ’

t looked a t the se fig u res— the diffe re n ce s would n ot be

la rge . We could live with the A ct, if it we r e passed , except for thehon or of be in g sin gled ou t from all othe r age n cie s . B u t, the re

13

would be a small incr ease in resour ce s with n o measur a ble diffe re n ce in health a n d sa fety .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . I a pprecia ted your te stimon y, whe n wewe re ta lkin g about the security upgr ading a t the n uclea r powe rpla n ts . Can you g ive us your be st cost e stima te for upgrading secur ity a t the se in dividual powe rplants?M r . SELIN . With your tolera n ce , I should explain a little more of

wha t the decision was . The decision was that every powerpla n ttha t could do so without ma jor cha n ge s, without moving ou t the

fe n ces or rebuilding the buildin gs to make them firmer , should g oou t and do what they can do.

There ’s a set of action s that a re available . The e stima te s a re tha tthis will cost about $1 mil lion pe r powe rpla n t, a n d they couldrange from $ 5 million to as much million to $3 million in a

ve ry small n umbe r of case s . That would be required , r ega rdle ss ofthe costs within tha t r a n ge . The a ve rage cost would be about $1million , and we

’

re talking a bout 70 site s .

Now, on a very small n umbe r O f sites, the staff estima ted 10 percen t— maybe eve n le ss tha n 10 pe r ce n t— would find that be ca use of

the ir geometry, that’s n ot en ough ; the curr en t fen ce s a re too close

to the buildi n gs . I n othe r words , we ha ve a te st tha t sa ys tha t ifyou

’

re more than a certai n n umbe r of feet from the building, youdon ’

t eve n have to do any more calculation s— you’

re O ff the hook .

So, for this small n umbe r of plants, say 5, 6, 7 , ma ybe 10 plants ,they would ha ve to do addition al analysis to sa y tha t they

’

re closerto the building than a stand-off could carry it, bu t gi ve n whe rethe ir pipe s ru n a n d give n the ir buildings, they can con vince theNRC that tha t’s e n ou gh , a n d they

’d be off the hook. Maybe 2, 3 , or4 of these pla n ts couldn’

t do tha t and they would have to thencome in and show tha t in order to comply they’d n eed to buy somemore land, cross a public highwa y, re structure a building— then

they would come in to us an d try to con vince us that the addition alcost is just n ot worth it a n d we would do a n a n alysis tha t we customa r ily do whe n we ’re talking a bout sma ll improveme n ts insa fety versus small incr ease s in cost .

So, we figure tha t a bout $1 million would cover almost all of thepla n ts . Maybe half a doze n would come in an d say they n eed to domore bu t they don

’

t thin k it’

s worth it. Then , some would be off

the hook a n d some wouldn’

t, so a couple of guys might ha ve tospe n d more tha n $1 million .

Sen a tor KEM PTHORNE . Now, you state that these would be re

gu irgme n ts, bu t you also used the word “ should — will it be a m

a te .

M r . SELIN . They would be requir ed to do the first piece , which isto re in force their curre n t fe n ce s to make them actually ba r rie rsand n ot mere ly trip wires that people would have to pa ss .

Whethe r they do more tha n that would depe n d on the a ddition alcost and whethe r they could con vince us that more tha n that wa sn ece ssa ry or n ot .

M r . REM I CK . I wish to make a poin t of clarification . The Commission

’

s decision was on e to deve lop a proposed rule whi ch would g oou t for public comme n t . What Chairma n Se lin is referring to is theCommission decision to deve lop a proposed rule for public comme n t.

14

Sen a tor KEM PTHORNE . Thank you . I just rece ived a ca ll from aun ive r sity tha t ha s bee n assessed a use r fee for its sma ll reactor .

The use r fee will a bsolute ly wipe ou t the ca pital budget a t this u n iver sity for tha t program .

I un de rsta n d tha t the a sse ssme n t of fe e s on academic in stitution smay be court-dr iven , bu t could you a dvise me on how you ca lcu la t

ed the fee to a ssess a n d how you a rr ived a t the decision with re

spect to discon tin uing the exemption sin ce the court me r e ly objected to the wea k r a tion ale for the previous exemption ?Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . L et me add tha t Se n ator Kempthor n e is n ot

the on ly on e to r ece ive a ca ll from a un ive r sity on this subject.

- M r . SELIN . Fir st of a ll, I ’d like to empha size tha t this ha s to dowith FY 1991 , FY 1992, a n d FY 1993 . I n FY 1991 a n d FY 1992 the

othe r lice n se e s bore the ir sha r e of the un ive rsity exemption , to be

r e imbur sed without the un ive r sitie s ha ving to make retroa ctivepaymen ts . So, a ll licen sees would g et re imburseme n ts for the threeyear s . The un ive r sitie s would ha ve to ma ke a pa ymen t for FY 1993tha t they had n ot expected a n d had n ot budgeted . As fa r a s FY1994 and the rea fte r , we have a pa r a lle l process to reexamin e thewhole question of fee s a n d deve lop a r a tion a le from scra tch .

As I explain ed to Se n a tor Liebe rma n , we pay e n ormous defere n ce our se lves, to both the Con gr ess a n d the courts . We try veryhard to ma ke sure tha t we n ot be see n a s a busin g ou r author itya n d whe n the court te lls us tha t ou r logic is murky, we rea d tha ta s be in g the tip of the icebe rg . For a court to disag re e with us, weknow they

’

re pretty un ha ppy with wha t we ’

re doin g, so we took ave ry good look a t the ir a rgume n t a n d they sa id , really, two thingson this question .

Fir st of all, the fa ct tha t un ive r sities ca n n ot pass alon g a n y in

crea se in lice n se fees rea lly is n ot a fa ir r a tion ale sin ce there a re

ma n y othe r organ iza tion s tha t a re n ot able to do this . Un le ss wea r e r ea dy to a pply that rule systema tica lly, a cross the boa rd, wewould n ot u se tha t rule .

The secon d que stion , a lthough it wasn’

t quite so poin ted , is tha tun ive r sitie s con tr ibute to the ge n er a l good, bu t so do a lot of otherpeople—c ha r ity hospitals a n d man y othe r people . We ha dn ’

t ma detha t a rgume n t ve ry con vin cin g .

O n Apr il 23 , we we n t ou t with a Federal Register n otice to ex

pla in wha t the court situa tion was . We pu t in wha t we hoped wewould be a ble to support a s a bill a n d as a rule tha t would supportthis exemption of un ive r sitie s . The Rule was published for commen t a n d the comme n ts were n ot ve ry he lpful . I n fa ct, we e sse n

ga l

l

ly re ce ived n o comme n ts from un ive r sitie s on supportin g thisu e .

O u r solicitor a dvised us tha t to try to g o ba ck to the court a n d

say tha t we were goin g to con tin ue this exemption on a n ew ba siswhe n we didn ’

t ha ve a ve ry good basis , which would ba sicallya ppear tha t we wer e n ot r e spon sive— tha t we we re both a busin gou r a uthor ity a n d in fa ct, in a n extr eme ca se , might e n da n ge r thewhole fe e structur e . So, wha t we de cided to do wa s, first of all, tofollow ou r lega l a dvice , bu t to set up cr ite r ia tha t un ive r sitie s couldme et in r eque stin g a n exemption from the 1993 pa yme n t . If theycould show both seve re fin a n cia l ha rdship a n d tha t they we re providin g n ot just be n efits to the ge n e r a l wor ld , bu t to othe r lice n see s,

15

too in othe r words , tha t they could look a t the gra duate s thatthey

’ve had and how the se people have gon e ou t to othe r lice n see sto support them in the n uclear area, that we would en te rtain ex

emption s for 1993 on the ir lice n se . B u t, we did n ot fee l tha t thege n eral be n efit don e was on e tha t we could support in court— tha tif other licen see s a re asked to pick up the bill, that the se peopleshould be a ble to show tha t the othe r licensee s be n efit indi rectlyfrom the ir a ctivity, so we followed the court

’s quite stron g lea d a n d

set up a quite clear stan da rd in te lling these lice n see s what theycould do in orde r to try to g et a n exemption . Of course , the re a re

also some libe ral paymen t schemes .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . I want to say that on e of the un ive r sitie stha t complain ed to us about this in the last couple of da ys said tha tthey simply had n ot seen it in the Fede ral Registe r because theya re n ot a ccustomed to following the Fede ral Registe r . I won de r ifyou n ormally do a n y more direct outre a ch on this kin d of thin g? Tothe universitie s?M r . SELIN . I am complete ly una ble to support that stateme n t. I

mean these people a re repr ese n ted in the ir business . They ce rta inly hea rd a bout the fee s when they came up . We

’ve carried ou t the

legal respon sibility for n otice . Ther e was a secon d n otice in the

Feder al Registe r a lmost a t the same time— four da ys ea r lie r— asca lled for un der the En e rgy Policy A ct to review the fee structurefor 1994 and thereon . We will try to r eview this , n ot in re spon se tothe courts, bu t to see wha t makes se n se .

I ha ve a g reat deal of sympathy for the position that the peoplea re pu t in , because this wasn

’

t somethin g tha t they budgeted for .

By the way, this very in nocuous n ote tells me that, in fact, the proposal is for a ll licensee s to re ly upon the Fede r al Registe r . The rea re a lot of problems with what we ’

r e doin g, bu t I don’

t thin k theFede ral Registe r n otice is on e of them .

Se n ator KEM PTHORNE . If I may, M r . Chairma n , just follow up on

this poin t and the n I have on e other que stion .

This particula r unive rsity summar ized the re asons they did n ot

re spon d . They said that they did n ote the Fede ral Regi ste r n oticea ddre ssing the waiver of university rea ctor ope ra ting lice n se fees .

They said that the wordin g of that article did n ot seem to requir ecommen t. I t appeared that the Commission was simply making thestateme n t that they in te n ded to continue waiving university re a o

tor ope ra ting license fee s , the r efor e we did n ot respon d and, thi rd ,the situa tion was fu rthe r compounded by a ppearance in the Federa l Registe r of a request for comme n t with a July 19 du e da te . Thiswas on a close ly re lated, bu t n ot obviously differe n t matte r .

M r . SELI N . Se n a tor , all I can say is that we a re in a situa tionwhe re we do n ot be lieve , with the information that we ha ve a t

ha n d, that we can support the exemption for FY 1993 withoutthrea te n ing the whole fee structure . I have n o doubt tha t we mighthave don e a bette r job of communi cating this although a reading ofthe documen t whi ch showed that ou r proposed rule was ve ry sympa thetic to the unive rsities and that in dicated wher e the Commission

’

s hearts lay, bu t the stateme n t in fron t of it made it clea r tha tthe courts had se riously question ed this point . The fa ct is, we

’

vedon e wha t we be lieve to be the most that we can do . The Commission is extreme ly sympa thetic to this view an d it wa s with on ly the

16

grea te st re lucta n ce tha t we we n t ahead with this and we pu t inwhat a re really quite libe ral and very explicit sta teme n ts of un derwhat con dition s, on a case-by-case basis , that a n exemption will becon side red .

Se n ator KEM PTHORNE . I would we ll imag ine , a s in dicated by theChairman

’

s commen ts , too, tha t you wi ll begin hea r in g from an

nmbe r of un iversities . Is this a n issue , the n , tha t you could revis

it .

M r . SELIN . Not for FY 1993 . If you ta lked to in dividua l Commission ers— we

’

ve had so much soul sear chin g on this poin t. We’

ve gotfour P hD’s a n d a ma n with a n advanced law degr ee— most of themcome from n uclear programs— a n d we don

’

t wan t to do this a t all .We ha ve stretched a s fa r as we fee l , give n the sta tute a n d give nthe court, is respon sible . We

’ve given these people a clea r a ve n ue ifthey can ma ke the specific a rgumen t— n ot the ge n e ra l a rgume n t

to ask for a n exemption . I really don ’

t thin k we ca n do a n y moregiven the ove rall structure of the fee schedule .

A n d, the r e’s n o sen se in the ir ca llin g the Commission . The rule

is set a n d n ow it’

s between them a n d the sta ff on specific poin ts ,ma kin g the substa n tive arg ume n t as opposed to philosophi cal .M r . REM I CK . I ha ve to add some addition al comme n ts , beca use

there a re some differe n ce s on the Commission on this very point,on whethe r un ive rsitie s had a dequate in dication of wha t wa s thein ten t of the Commission in tha t n otice . The Commission had decided that it would con tin ue the exemption a n d the n otice thatwe n t ou t stron gly supported the basis for con tin uin g the exemption . I t did ask for commen ts on the exte r n a lized ben efits a n d so

forth, goin g back to the court decision , bu t my hon e st rea din g of it

wa s that un iver sities had n o in dica tion , othe r tha n the fa ct tha tthe Commission was goin g to con tin ue the exemption .

There wa s some con fusion , I be lieve , because we do ha ve a n othe r

n otice ou t in respon se to the En ergy Policy A ct of 1992 on reviewin g the issue of fees and I be lieve the un ive rsitie s we re un de r theimpression tha t wa s their opportun ity to provide a n y gr eate r a rgumen ts on exte r n a l be n efits for exemptin g fees to un ive r sitie s .

I t’

s n ot on ly the resea rch rea ctor s that a re be in g affe cted , bu t it’

s

a lso the ma te r ia l lice n ses a t un ive r sities .So, we do ha ve some diffe re n ce s in this a r ea . The commission de

cision is on e tha t will gra n t the opportun ity for exemption s to begr a n ted . I t

’

s un fortun ate that if exemption s a r e gran ted, the n tha twill be le ss r eve n ue for the Federa l Gove r n men t in those ca se swhe re , if we had gon e with a ge n er ic a pproa ch of exemption , the

othe r s would ha ve picked up tha t portion of the fees as ha s bee ndon e in the past.

M r . SELIN . We’

re n ot tryin g to pun ish the un ive r sitie s for n ot

comin g in . The Commission doe s n ot ha ve a va ila ble a rgume n ts tha tthe major ity of the Commission be lieve s will support the r a tion aletha t we ha ve he a rd I n Con gress . The un ive r sitie s had a n opportun ity to provide tha t, which just me a n s tha t it wa s a n othe r source of

the in forma tion . B u t the bottom lin e is tha t we don ’

t thin k weha ve the in forma tion . We might ha ve don e a bette r job ourse lve s,the un ive r sities might have don e a bette r job— a n y of a n umbe r of

thin gs could ha ve ha ppe n ed— bu t it’s just tha t we ca n ’

t support a

coun te r a rgume n t a t this poin t .

17

Se n ator KEM PTHORNE . I thin k you have the universities’

a tte n

tion n ow and I thin k this could have a rea l n ega tive impa ct on n u

clea r educa tion , a n d some of those youn g stude n ts tha t dream of

becomin g NRC Commission e rs some day .

[La ughte r . ]Se n ator KEM P I ‘HO RNE . M r . Chairma n , I ha ve a n othe r question ,

bu t I’

ll just wait if we’

re going to do anothe r roun d of question s .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . Sure , weSe n ator Faircloth, we lcome .

Se n a tor FA I RCL O ’I‘

H . Than k you , M r . Cha irman .

I want to thank the Commission e rs and the witn esse s for be inghere today to discuss the reauthorization of the Nuclear Reg ulatoryCommission .

I have a very direct in te re st in this . I ’m n ew to the Se n ate , bu t Ilive within a n hours drive of two— in fact , betwee n two— n uclearplants , so I ha ve a ve ry pe rson al inte r est in see ing tha t they a re

close ly mon itored and safe ly ope rated . I came to the Se n ate to see

what could be don e to bring common sense to the regulatory process. The plethora of rules a n d regulations that include eve rythingwe do— and that include s the n uclear industry and the Commissionwhi ch oversee s it .

With an indu stry so in he r e n tly subject to miscon ception as then uclear power industry, I su spe ct the re

’s a lot of room the re for

some common se n se . I think so .

Dr . Se lin, as I understand it, the Chairman of the subcommittee ,

Se n ator Liebe rma n , plans to introduce legislation which would, inlarge measure , take awa y your authority to give the fin al word on

public pe tition s which challe n ge the safety of ope ratin g n ucle a rpla n ts and, inste ad, give it to the courts . I f you ha ve to g o to thecourts with each of these petitions, could the ove rsight respon sibility suffer as a resu lt of this?M r . SELIN . To be absolute ly frank, Se n ator , I think the on ly

effect O f this legislation passin g— other than some emba rr assme n t

to the Commission for be ing singled ou t— would be that we wouldhave to spe n d a little more mon ey and a little more time andstretch ou t some of these position s that cou ld be ma de quite we lla n d quite finally a t the Commission basis . I think the cha n ces ofou r oversight be ing reversed or unde rcut a re n egligible — I reallythink that the re would be n o practical effect a n d it would be ana ddition al cost. B u t, safety would be n e ither greate r n or le ss g reatif the legislation passed . The n et r esults would be similar and Ihope tha t through the workshop commu n ication and inte r n al process, we can do bette r .

To pu t it in simplest te rms, I think it’

s a legitimate con cern thatoutside r s should understand tha t the Commission deals with the se

processe s bette r than they do today and if there ’s room for

improvemen t, the first line is to improve how the Commissiondeals with the processe s r a ther than pu t a n othe r line behind us . Ijust thi n k it would be a waste to have the judicial review a bilitywhe n the same amount of effort could more productive ly be focu sed on how the Commission itse lf deals with the petition s , rathe rtha n what ha ppens when its completed . I don

’

t think sa fety wouldbe un dercut— I d just spe n d a little mor e mon ey and the fee s wouldbe a little highe r

Jto do the same job that we

’

re doin g toda y .

18

Sen a tor FAI RCLOTH . We ll , I ce rta in ly have the gre a te st re spe ctfor Se n a tor Liebe rma n a n d his a bility as a n a ttor n ey a n d as a judicia l thin ker . B u t, it does bothe r me tha t if you g et in to the courts ,the re is n o e n d to the amoun t of time a n d mon ey tha t ca n be con

sumed by tha t process . I mea n , eve rybody kn ows tha t is a way of

tyin g up a n d holdin g up an ythin g they wa n t to . We all know,

whethe r the Fede ral Gove r n men t is hir in g them or the pr ivatese ctor is hir in g them , the cost of a ttor n eys ha s become a stron omica l. Would ou r re sources be bette r spe n t se rvin g a n d lookin g a fterthe

9pla n tstha n to ha ve to litiga te every petition tha t came be fore

you .

M r . SELIN . My daughte r just gra dua ted from law school in Jun e ,so I have a ce rta in amoun t of con flict of in te r est .

[La ughte r . ]Sen a tor FAI RCLOTH . I

’

ve g ot on e I’

m tryin g to g et to g o .

[La ughte r . ]M r . SELI N . The people a t the othe r side of the da is a re lawmak

e rs. Whe n they see a problem , , it’

s a n atural inclin ation to try to

fix it with the law a n d I thin k that’s a pe rfectly r e a son a ble thing .

We a re r egulator s a n d ou r a pproa ch is to try to fix it with what isun de r ou r con trol a n d ou r a pproa ch . I don ’

t thin k the r e’s a n y que s

tion tha t the process could be more tr a n spa re n t a n d more credibletha n it is toda y . We do n ot be lieve tha t the amoun t of r esourcetha t would be dive rted would be large , bu t we do n ot be lieve tha t itwould be a productive dive r sion — that the r esource s a re bette rspe n t, n ot just in the broad se n se of health a n d sa fety, bu t in ope ra tin g in te r n a lly . I should sa y tha t it

’

s bee n a bout a ye a r sin ce thegen eral coun se l came to the Commission a n d sa id tha t the proce ssre a lly n eeds to be upda ted, so we show some significa n t se n sitivityto the broa dly expressed dissa tisfa ction with the la ck of tra n spa r

e n cy, a n d we do wa n t to do some thin g a bout it. We just wouldrathe r n ot do it through sta tute .

Se n a tor FAI RCLOTH . O n e thin g that con ce r n s me with this type of

a utoma tic judicia l review of a ll Fede ral age n cie s is tha t we wouldsee the litiga tion cost of Govern me n t just a bsolute ly explode . I t

would ma ke a lot O f a ttor n eys r ich- probably in cludin g yourda ughte r— bu t we ’ve g ot to lea r n in this Coun try that the courtshould be the la st r e sort , a n d we ha ve te n ded to make the courtsthe fir st.

M r . SELI N . I ca n on ly spe a k for the NRC’

s poin t of view, bu t webe lieve tha t this defe re n ce we ha ve— the respect we ha ve from the

Con gre ss a n d the defe re n ce we ha ve from the courts— is like ma n yothe r poin ts of con fide n ce , if you eve n sta rt to lose it, it

’

s ve ry hardto g et it ba ck . We ma ke e n ormous in ve stme n ts , n ot eve n to come to

the 5 pe rce n t poin t of ha vin g a court look a t wha t we’

re doin g a n dsayin g substa n tive ly tha t they disa gr ee with us . As a re sult, weprobably a lrea dy in cur the ma jor pa rt of the cost that would be involved in goin g to court . We don ’

t thin k tha t’s a bad ba rgain . Ica n ’

t spea k for othe r age n cies , bu t in ou r ca se , we ha ve wha tamoun ts to a ve ry thorough in te r n a l qua si-judicia l review . We ha vethe Executive Director ’s review a n d we ha ve the Commission lookin g ove r his shoulde r . As fa r a s the ge n e r al que stion of litiga tion ,

in ou r a re a we ha ve such extr a ordin a ry author ity a n d such ex

tr a ordin a ry defe re n ce tha t is paid us by the Con gr e ss tha t we thin k

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20

to a civil sea rch wa rra n t— a search war ra n t tr a dition ally gr an tedit would n ot give us the a uthority to just go in . We

’

d still ha ve tog o to a court, g et a wa r r a n t, a n d it would be limited to the que stiona t ha n d a n d to the kin d O f re cords a t ha n d , bu t it would ha ve thebe n efit of surpr ise . Ge n e r a lly, in pr in ciple , on e could g et a n a dministra tive search wa rr a n t bu t, in fa ct, the courts have n ot issuedsea rch wa r ra n ts to age n cies tha t have subpoe n a powe r s , so the fa cttha t we ha ve subpoe n a powe r in the se few cases actua lly worksaga in st ou r ability to g o in quickly a n d g et the search wa r r a n t .

Just to g o a step furthe r , M r . Cha irma n , the re a r e a smalln umbe r of example s— two is, I thi n k, a sma ll n umber— O f age n cie stha t do ha ve such search wa r r a n ts .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . Tha t was my n ext que stion .

M r . SELI N . O n e is the Depa rtme n t of Tran sporta tion , which ca n

g o in to check odometer readin gs on used ca rs . Lookin g down a t

the work that ou r colleagues do, we really do thin k tha t the sa fetya n d he a lth con sider a tion s tha t we

’

re dea lin g with a re a t least asgr ea t as tha t.

The FDA is also a ble , in ce rtain circumsta n ce s, to g et sear chwa r r a n ts which is a much close r a n a log to ou r situa tion . We ha velooked a t specific example s of pla ce s whe re we we n t in a n d we rerefused e n try a n d by the time we g ot in , the re were n o r ecordsthe re . The re might n ot ha ve bee n a n y records ther e to beg in with .

it looks like a bout two or three time s a ye a r tha t we would u se

such a wa r ra n t.

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . OK . A diffe re n t kin d of question . This goe sto the NRC

’

s office of in vestiga tion s which in on e of the r eportstha t we saw, in dicated tha t last yea r it closed a bout a hun dredcases du e to a la ck of resources . I presume they ’

re closin g case s ofle ss import, so the question s a re two— wha t types of a llegation s a ren ot bein g in vestiga ted a n d the n , secon d, does the office of in ve stigation ha ve a dequa te r e sour ce s?M r . SELIN . Of cour se , n obody ha s a dequate resource s .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . T ’

ha t s the r ight an swer to tha t que stion .

M r . SELIN . B u t, the office of in ve stiga tion is n ot n otice ably shortof re source s , given ou r cur re n t budget, a s we

’ ll discuss a t your n exthe a r in g on how we dea l wi th a llega tion s . For r eason s tha t a re n ot

pure ly re source re a son s , eve ry time we g et a health a n d sa fety a lleg a tion or a ha rassme n t a n d in timida tion a llega tion , tha t allega tionis checked ou t from a sa fety poin t of view . Tha t’s n ot really a n OIfun ction a s much a s it is a sta ff fun ction . Whe n I say sa fety, Ime a n in the techn ica l se n se— is the r e a va lve that

’s broke n r a the r

tha n is the re a n e n viron me n t tha t discourage s a llega tion s . B u t, fol

lowin g u p on the in dividua l compla in t to see if the r e ha s bee n discr imin a tion , the refor e from ou r poin t of view, whethe r that compan y should be pu t on n otice tha t they

’

re n ot tre a tin g employee sr ight. We do n ot follow up on such compla in ts while the Depa rtme n t of Labor is lookin g a t the pe r son ’s compla in t of view for r e

media tion . We would n ot ha ve the re source s to do tha t . I n othe r

words if, for prog ram r e a son s , we cha n ged the wa y we do in ve stigation s , we would ha ve to in cre a se ou r OI re source s , bu t give n ou r

cur re n t philosophy, which is somewha t dr ive n by re source s, bu t Ithin k ge n e r a lly dr ive n by a whole lot of progr am con side r a tion , weha ve sort of a dequa te resource s— they

’

re n ot n otice a bly short .

21

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . Tha n k you .

Sen a tor Kempthorn e .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . M r . Chairma n , thank you .

Fin ally, on that un iversity issue , M r . Chairma n , I’

m sure weshare the common be lief tha t un ive rsity educa tion budgets a re

stretched a s it is a n d I thi n k this will ha ve impa ct. I would certainly be willing to work with you to see if the re

’s something tha tcould be don e . If n othin g e lse , to he lp them so that this is n ot immediate ly upon them , as it is somethi n g tha t they did n ot take in tocon side ration with the ir budgets .

I always fin d that when eve r I’

m told n othin g ca n be don e , Ifin d it to be a good challe n ge , to see if we can

’

t do something .

M r . SELIN . Se n a tor , that wasn’

t the que stion , bu t I would like tomake a point with re spe ct to FY 1994 a n d the reafter . The Commission fee ls tha t it is unfair , un wise , and re a lly hurts ou r credibilitywhe n on e set O f people g et exempted for the gen era l good and otherlice n sees ha ve to pick up the ir fe e s . The ma in poin t that we ’

re

lookin g a t in the procedure tha t wa s set up un der the En e rgyPolicy A ct is areas whe re the ag en cy is doin g thin gs, n ot so muchfor the lice n sees , bu t for more ge n era l purposes such as support forsome O f the inte rn a tion al programs, et cete ra . O u r fee ling is thatif, for reason s othe r than be n efit to the in dustry as a whole , peoplea r e give n exemption s, that should come from a ppropr iated fun ds . I t

should n ot just be reallocated through other lice n see s . That’swhe re the ru b come s— that

’s whe r e the un fai r n ess a rgume n t

comes . I t’

s n ot tha t we’

re tryin g to pe n alize the un iversities or anybody e lse .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . All right. Commission er Remick, let me

ask you a que stion .

M r . REM I CK . Yes, sir .

Se n a tor KEM P T I-I O RNE . I ’d like to in vite your comme n ts on the

me r its O f a n a dva n ced n uclear techn ology un de r deve lopme n t a t

the Idaho Na tion al En gin eering Laboratory which is called the I ntegr a l Fast Reactor— the IFR .

As I un de r stand the technology, which is on the ve rge O f provingitse lf, it may accomplish some very importa n t objectives . O n e , I t

ca n recycle a ctin ide from most curre n t n uclea r waste sour ces , redu cin g ou r lon g te rm n uclea r wa ste disposal problems . N O , it caneffective ly spoil and con vert to civilia n e n e rgy, the pluton ium from4 0—50 thousand n uclear warhea ds that a re in surplus n ow. And ,n umber three , it is prolife ration re sista n t with fue l recycle designa n d possesse s inhe re n t passive safety fea ture s .

SO , ca n you please comme n t? I kn ow tha t you’ve bee n doing some

work on this .

M r . REM I CK . I assume you’

re askin g my profession al opin ion , n ot

n ece ssarily tha t O f a Commission e r , beca use as a Comm ission er webasically look a t the health and safety aspect O f the designs tha ta re e ither proposed for us to review for lice n sin g or plants tha t a rein O pe ra tion . The re a ctor con cept associa ted with what ha s becomecalled the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor has been reviewed bythe NRC . As a forme r member and chairma n of the A ORS I wasinvolved in that.

I don’

t think that’s your question , so if I pu t aside my Commission er ha t and ju st talk as a n uclea r e n gineering profession al , I

22

have to sa y tha t I thin k the IFR con cept is an extreme ly in terestin g con cept from a n umbe r O f viewpoin ts tha t you ’ve expressed .

There was much in te restin g work that ha s bee n goin g on ou t in

Idaho. I visited tha t facility I guess a pproxima te ly a yea r a g o a n d

also we n t to wha t is called Argon n e East outside O f Chicago andlooked a t some O f the re lated a ctivity .

Spe a kin g just a s a profession a l , I thin k it’

s a n extreme ly in te re stin g con cept. I thin k it ha s a lot of pote n tial , in ge n e ral . The con

cept O f the IFR be in g used for actinide bur n in g or the con sumptionof wea pon s pluton ium a n d thin gs like that, from my sta n dpoin t,has a lot O f pote n tia l , bu t it ha s a ways to g o . Spe a kin g as a profession a l, pe rson ally, I would like to see that work con tin ue a n d Ithin k it could ha ve lon g ran ge importan ce to the Coun try . I

’

mspeaking n ot as a Commission er , bu t I thin k your que stion s we readdre ssed more in the a re a O f con cept a n d the pote n tia l for tha tcon cept.

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . I apprecia te tha t. I’

ll pu t in on e fin alquestion . Give n all tha t we ’

re r eadi n g a n dhea r in g rega rdin g n uclea r sa fety in Easte r n Europe a n d the forme r Soviet Un ion , I

’d liketo ha ve your views a bout how thin gs a re really goin g with re spectto a ll O f the so-called assista n ce tha t ha s ta ken pla ce .

M r . SELIN . I’

ve pe r son a lly bee n ve ry much in volved in this asCha irman of the NRC a n d a s a n outside profe ssion a l . I be lieve thatthe problem is huge . I be lieve the Ame r ica n progr ams a re prettygood , bu t they on ly scra tch the surfa ce . Wha t came ou t of the

Mun ich Summit was a decision by the West to provide a fair ly limited amoun t O f short te rm a ssista n ce to improve O pe ration s a n d u se

a t some O f the most high r isk— pa rticula r ly fire r isk— pla n ts a n d

improve n uclea r reg ula tion .

The Un ited Sta tes a ctua lly ha s projects un de r way tha t willspe n d some $21 million cumula tive ly in these thr ee a re a s , a n d Ithin k they’

re pretty good projects . I thin k they’

re we ll worth themon ey, bu t eve n if they

’

re e n ormously successful , they won’

t ha vea ve ry la rge impa ct on n ucle a r r isk in Easte r n Europe . We see cancer s a n d we have ba n d-a ids a n d me rcurochrome a va ila ble— it

’

s

good to g et some con trol on the lesion s, bu t they don’

t solve theproblems .

Wha t is rea lly n e eded mostly ha s to come from Russia a n d the

Ukra in e with some a ctive he lp from the West a n d that is somethorough e con omic re form , with le ss r e lia n ce on some of the se intr in sica lly un sa fe r e a ctor s , so tha t they could be repla ced e ithe r

with the mode r n n uclea r r eactor s or n on -n ucle a r e lectr icity, a n d

ha ve this don e on a comme r cia l basis . Nobody in the We st is goin gto pu t up $20 billion in a id a n d if the Russia n s ha ve to pay it, it ismuch more like ly tha t they will do re spon sible thin gs .

Tha t’s way beyon d the scope O f the programs that we un de rtake .

I thin k ou r Gove r n me n t ha s its a ct togethe r a n d is doin g quite a

good job bu t it’

s a ve ry limited fir st step . We’ ll n eve r g et to the

secon d poin t if the se little proje cts a re n ot succe ssful . The re ha s tobe some patte r n O f succe ss , some con fide n ce buildin g, some commu

n ica tion so, in tha t se n se , the possibility O f the se projects goe s quitea bit beyon d the short te rm Obje ctive s . The NRC ha s be e n workin gwith the Soviet Un ion through succe ssor republics sin ce 1988 . Ithin k you would fin d eve n DOE witn e sse s would sa y tha t the regu

23

la tO pa rt is going quite we ll , bu t if the un de r lyin g ope ration sare n t safe , regulation ca n

’

t tur n them aroun d .

Se n ator KEM PTHORNE . SO , do these coun tr ie s in Ea ste rn a n d the

forme r Soviet Union have the techn ology, and simply chose to

ign ore en viron me n tal con ce rn s?M r . SELI N . L et me say this a bout the forme r Soviet Un ion . The

situation in Easte rn Europe is much , much bette r tha t the on e Idescribed . The Czechs really have a rathe r good program a n d

they’

re on the ir way to getti n g some Westinghouse equipme n t to

improve the ir reactors con side ra bly . The Hun ga r ians a re prettyclose to wor ld class . The Bulga r ia n s ha ve some se r ious problemsbu t a re making a major effort, with a lot O f assista n ce , to ove rcome

them . The major problems a re in Russia, Lithuania , a n d Ukrain e .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . Again , if I may . With rega rd to Russia, dothey ha ve the technology and ha ve just chose n to ignore the e n vi

ron me n ta l con cerns?M r . SELI N . The

“

they soun ds like there ’s a n e ffective , mon olithic gove rn me n t . The r e isn ’

t. The r e a re people who have the te chn ology a n d the people

'

who a re makin g the econ omic decision s a n dthey a re n ot the same people . This is n ot a coun try tha t has, in thepast, fa ced up to unpleasan t facts publicly and ta ken stron g reaotion s .

When I visited Che rn obyl a year a n d a ha lf ag o, the Ukrainia nregulator told me this a n ecdote— that if a Russian sees a n O il

soa ked rag sittin g on the groun d , remembe r in g tha t fire is pe rha psthe ma jor threat in the area , he won

’

t stoop to pick it up . On ce thefir e take s place , he will risk his life to save his buddy a n d try to

pu t tha t fire ou t. They don ’

t ha ve a preve n tion -safety kin d O f culture there .

En viron men tal issue s a re a whole sepa rate set O f issues . They’

veabused the ir en viron me n t so drastically for the last 70 years tha tcleanup is almost ou t O f the que stion — it’s a question O f con tainingdamage so it doe sn ’

t spread . B u t, it’

s n ot a technology thing in thesen se that they’re highly inte lligen t people . Transfe rr ing fromtechnology to budget has bee n a big weakness . Run n ing the pla n tssafety-first has bee n a n eve n bigger wea kne ss , letting. the econ omica n d political decision make rs sha re some O f the con ce r n tha t Iknow you fee l .Se n ator KEM PTHORNE . Thank you very much . M r . Chairman ,

thank you .

Se n ator LI E BERM AN . Thank you , Se n ator Kempthorn e .

Se n ator Kempthom e’

s que stion a bout the Idaho program in vite sme to ask on e a bout a Con n ecticut program . Although both ha vewider implication s, O f course .

This has to do with the ABB a n d the CE which is partially loca ted in Con n ecticut, and is in the process O f submittin g a design , as

you may know, for a so-called evolution ary r ea ctor , which they a r e

hoping to have ce rtified by NRC as part O f a competition tha t

they’

r e involved in to se ll it in Taiwa n .

The ir con cer n expressed to me is about the time line ss O f youra bility to review and make a judgme n t on whether you ca n certify ,which will have a n impact on the ir ability to compete for this contract a n d, we hope— presumably— ou jobs i n thi s Coun try .

How a r e we doing on tha t?

24

M r . SELI N . L ef’

s g o to the bottom lin e . Given the cur re n t pace ,give n the extr a ordin ary flexibility that the Taiwan author itie shave chose n in wha t they require a t each poin t in the proce ss , it ishighly like ly tha t they

’ll ha ve the docume n ts tha t they n eed— a t

this poin t in the proce ss, a dr a ft safety evalua tion , to bid, a n d a

fin a l safety eva lua tion although n ot a full certifica tion , which theydon

’

t n eed to win the bid in orde r to de live r the project. SO , that’s

the bottom lin e .

The other poin t is that they had two con ce rn s . O n e is tha t sin cethey were se con d in lin e , they we re a fra id tha t we would holdthem up if the people a t the fron t fa lte red . Tha t is n ot a valid concer n — we ha ve full teams workin g on both . The ge n e r ic issues havebee n resolved— all the issue s n ow a re ve n dor-specific . If Ge n e ralElectr ic has some problems, the n they could come a head . You ’veg ot two airplan e s, two groun d crews a n d two ga te s, so it

’

s just aquestion O f who gets the re fir st. Resources , although n ever easy,a re n ot rea lly the problem . Puttin g more mon ey or more people on

the pi

l

‘

pject probably slowed thin gs down , bu t they’

r e in the homestretc

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . Good . A diffe ren t kin d of que stion . Ea r lie r ,in Apr il O f this year , the New York Times reported that the NRCsta ff had ide n tified 15 n uclea r powe rplan ts whose r eactor ve sse lsha ve be come quite weak a n d so much so tha t they n eed ca reful a n dexte n sive an alysis to dete rmine whether they

’

re still sa fe . I t ha ppe n s tha t the Millston e II plan t in Con n e cticut is on e of those . Iwan t to a sk for a report on the sta tus a n d, to u se your phrase , the

bottom lin e . Is it sa fe to contin ue the O pera tion O f these reactor swhile the studie s a re un der way?M r . SELI N . First O f all , the hea dlin e in the a rticle is wron g . We

n eve r ta lked a bout testin g, bu t the a rticle ove r a ll is quite accur a te .

We ta lked a bout ductility a n d embr ittleme n t. I n other words ,how br ittle is the re a ctor? Of pa rticula r con ce r n is, if cracks sta rtfor a n umbe r O f re a son s, tha t they would propa gate , n ot in a n a ccide n t, bu t just sort O f in n orma l ope r a tion that they might propaga te throughout the rea ctor ve sse l . We have wha t

’s ca lled the

scree n in g precur re n t— it’s a ve ry con se rvative pr ecur re n t . I t saystha t if a ce rtain test produces a ce rtain n umbe r , you don

’

t eve nha ve to look a n y furthe r . The fa ct tha t it doe sn

’

t produce a n umbe rdoesn ’

t mea n we have a problem , it just me a n s that you can’

t ruleit ou t, ou t O f ha n d .

Accordin g to the sta ff’ s r a the r con se rva tive calcula tion , the Millston e II re a ctor , in a bout the ye a r 2007 , would n ot pass the scr e e nin g pre cur re n t. The lice n se is good un til 2015 .

Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . SO , in tha t se n se , the problem is wor se tha nwas expected whe n the fa cility was ope n ed .

M r . SELI N . People didn ’

t kn ow . Tha t’s why for eve ry reactorexec t Yan kee Rowe , we required samples O f the same ma te r ialtha t s used in the ve sse l a n d pa rticula r ly in the we lls be pu t in ther e a ctor a t the high flux poin ts a n d ta ke n ou t a n d exam in ed so wewouldn ’

t be just extrapola tin g from in itia l a n a lyse s— we would a o

tu a lly ha ve some expe r ime n ta l re sults .

I thin k the bottom lin e is n ot tha t they a re or a r e n’

t in goodsha pe , bu t tha t un de r the most con se rva tive con dition s , just a s youn eed to do with the secon d leve l O f an a lysis , to see if by the ye a r

25

2007 the reactors vesse l’

s brittle n ess ha s passed a real poin t— a

la ck of ductility, as O pposed to some sur rogate . There ’

s a lot of timebetween n ow and the n to do the analysis . If it tur n s ou t— which isn ot ou r expectation — bu t if it turn s ou t tha t the re ’s a real problemthere , O f course , we would n ot pe rmit them to con tin ue . B u t, wedon ’

t want to repe a t the Yankee Rowe expe r ie n ce whe re the pa rtie s ha ve n ot eve n agreed on how to do the analysis-measured re

su lts. We want tha t ou t O f the way lon g be fore the re is a n actua lsituation .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . SO , there’s n o que stion n ow about the ir

safety in terms O f their con tinuing O pe ration ?M r . SELIN . The re is n o que stion a bout the ir safety for n owSenator LI EBERM AN . Then the only que stion s that remain a re n ot

as yet dete rmined whethe r these plants will be able to O pe rate forthe full te rm of the ir licen se s?M r . SELI N . Yes, sir , that is the issue r ight n ow.

Sen ator LI EBERM AN . Thank you .

Se n ator Kempthorn e?M r . REM I CK . Could I just add somethin g?

Sena tor LI E BERM AN . Ce rtainlyM r . REM I CK . I ha ve a re lated commen t, bu t n ot dire ctly, to thequestion , bu t I wouldn

’

t want to miss the O pportun ity . From timeto time , people ask why should a regula tory body like the NRC con

duct research and you re touchin g on a re lated area r ight n ow, the

reason that we a re in a stron g scie n tific and en ginee r ing base inthis a rea is be cause the O ld Atomic En ergy Commission startedsome research on heavy section stee l te chnology— actually startedby the Naval Re search Laboratory years a g o . The NRC has con tinu ed this work a t Oak Ridge— I just ha ppe n ed to have bee n downthe re Mon day reviewing that program .

I t’

s on e of the prime examples O f resea rch tha t the NRC ha s contin u ed. If we did n ot sponsor tha t resea r ch, it would n ot be don e in

this Coun try a n d pe rha ps n ot anywhere in the wor ld . I n a n area asextreme ly important to safety as pre ssure ve sse l integr ity is, we

’

vecon tinued that re se a rch from year to year . Maybe you ca n

’

t pointto the importance O f doing that re sear ch in any particular year ,bu t when we n eeded it like with the issue O f pressur ized the rmalschock and with the issue

‘

O f the Yankee Rowe vesse l, we had thatn ucleus O f expe rtise with a lot O f information availa ble to us .

I did n ot want to miss the O pportun ity to stress the importanceof havin g a regulatory body having some ability to con duct re

sea rch that others would n ot do, pe rhaps . I t’

s very important in thelon g te rm .

Se n a tor LI E BERM AN . I t’

s a good point and I t was we ll made .

Se n ator Kempthorn e .

Se n a tor KEM PTHORNE . M r . Chairman , I have n o othe r specificquestion s other than to just ask the other two Commission ers if

you wish to commen t on any O f the items we have discussed thismorn in g?M r . Cu RTI ss. I guess I

’d make a comme n t on the processwhich ha s bee n the subject O f a lot of discussion here .

We , as an age n cy, ha ve take n the position con siste n tly be fore thecourts a n d, O f course , he re today tha t the 2 .206 petition s of a n e n

forcemen t n atur e ought n ot to be subject to judicial r eview . I t’

s a

26

position tha t, in my view a s a lawye r , has a firm foun da tion in theSupreme Court de cision of Heckler v . Cha n ey , a n d it

’

s on e tha t ha s

bee n recognized by the circuit courts tha t ha ve a ddressed the issueun iformly a n dwithout exception .

The r e ’

s a poin t he re tha t I thin k proba bly n eeds to be emphasized . I thin k the Cha irma n ha s a ptly poin ted to the fa ct tha t judicia l review is n ot goin g to cha n ge the r esult— we

’

re goin g to ca rryou t the same r igorous kin d O f a n a lysis O f petition s tha t wedid before . A n d, in fa ct, we did tha t a t a time before Heckler v .

Cha n ey in 1985, when those decision s we re subject to judicia lr eview a n d the re cord , I thin k, is a ptly cited by the Chairma n as ave ry successful on e . A t the bottom though , it seems to me tha t the

importan t distin ction is that we ha ve viewed petition s as enforceme n t ma tte r s a n d from my per spective , with the five yea r s O nthe Commission tha t I

’

ve had n ow, it seems to me tha t it’

s quiteproblema tic to try to promulga te a stan dard , whethe r it

’

s in legislation or in a n a dmin istra tive regulation that gover n s a n a rea that issubject to such discr etion a n d the n eed for flexibility whe n it comesto decision s . We ha ve , I thin k, a soun d proce ss . We

’

ve r e

viewed ove r 350 O f the se sin ce we were e stablished a n d I thin k areview O f the petition s a n d ou r r e spon se s wi ll support thesubstan tial effort tha t’s gon e in to the soun d decision ma kin g process.

I share the views tha t we r e expre ssed ear lier tha t wha t we don ’

t

wan t to do here is judicia lize a proce ss tha t will in volve a n a tte n ded commitme n t O f re sources on ou r pa rt whe n , a t a time O f limitedresour ces we n e ed to focus those on rea l safety question s . I t

’

s n ot

clear to me tha t we’

d accomplish tha t by subjectin g the se 2 .206s to

judicia l review .

We ha ve , it should be n oted , in a con text whe r e we view asa ction as la rge ly lice n sing in n a ture , agreed tha t those petition sought to be subject to judicia l review, so it

’

s n ot a fe a r of what wemight e n coun te r when we g et in to the courts . B u t a t bottom , the

poin t tha t I thin k n eeds to be emphasized a n d I thin k is behin d theCommission ’s position in the courts a n d he re toda y, is that the e n

forceme n t n a tur e O f these a ction s is in he re n tly somethin g tha t re

quires a degr e e O f discretion a n d doe sn’

t le n d itse lf to the pon tification O f a stan da rd tha t would gove rn in eve ry sin gle ca se . I thoughttha t wa s a poin t I should le a ve you with .

Tha n k you .

Ms . DE P LANQ UE . I just would like to add a comme n t about theun ive r sity situa tion tha t you ’

r e con cer n ed about.

I thin k the Chairma n prope r ly cha ra cter ized the de cision O f the

ma jor ity in this ca se a n d I thin k Commission e r Remick in dica tedtha t this wa s a ve ry difficult de cision for all O f us . I n ou r he a rts wewe re very , ve ry sympa thetic with the situa tion in which we

’

veplaced the un ive rsities both through the re a ctor progr ams andthrough the ma te r ia ls progr ams .

I would hope tha t sin ce we ha ve provided for a me a n s for exemption for 1993 tha t the Commission will , in fa ct, be a s libe ral as possible in gr a n tin g those exemption s . I t

’

s importan t tha t the un ive rsity un de r stan d tha t the situa tion for a pplyin g for those exemption swill be a vailable a n d tha t they ca r ry ou t tha t fun ction the be st waythey ca n so tha t we ca n , in fa ct, be as libe ral a s possible .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

28

Subcommitte e in 1991 tha t it had a llowed on ly two he a r in gs in re

spon se to 321 petition s , both of those two comin g be fore the Hecklerv . Cha n ey decision cast doubt on the judicia l review a bility O f the sepetition s . I n on ly on e recen t ca se—tha t regardin g Yan kee Roweha s the NRC he ld a n y kin d O f a hea r in g in r espon se to a petitiona n d that process did n ot a fford citize n s a r ight to discovery or crossexamination .

The NRC’

s cla im tha t it ha s gra n ted te n pe rce n t O f the petition sby ta kin g some a ction is impossible to ver ify . Eve n if true , it hardlymakes the proce ss a succe ss if the age n cy is den yin g outr ight n in eou t O f te n petition s while in the rema in in g cases it excludes the a f

fected citize n s while it works wi th the lice n se e s . I n fa ct, the Un ionO f Con ce r n ed Scie n tists ha s foun d that the NRC’

s pa tte r n is to

de la y rulin g on petition e rs ’ r eque sts for hear in gs un til it ca n makea pla usible cla im tha t its own pr iva te in te ra ction s with the lice n seeha ve yie lded sufficien t improveme n t to justify de n ia l O f the hear in gr equest.

Although the NRC is cur re n tly reviewin g its procedure s,a n d we pla n to pa rticipate in tha t proce ss, it is cle a r that withoutjudicia l review, the agen cy will con tin ue to de n y most, if n ot a ll,show ca use petition s without a n y a ccoun ta bility . I n fa ct, the backgroun d pa per for the upcomin g workshops does n ot a ddre ss the judicia l review que stion .

Oddly e n ough , both the NRC a n d the US . Court O f Appe a ls forthe D C. Circuit have decided tha t petition s will be reviewable before reactor s g o in to O pe r a tion , bu t n ot a fte r they sta rt up .

This is truly a distin ction without a differe n ce . Wh ether be fore or

a fte r cr itica lity, membe r s O f the public ha ve a stron g in te re st insafety a n d in both case s would be askin g the NRC to in stitute a

proceedin g regardin g a lice n se tha t has alrea dy bee n g ra n ted .

The re is n o logi cal reason why petition s should be ma de u n r eviewable just beca use the reactor ha s a lready reached cr iticality, wi th allthe r isks tha t e n ta ils .

Sin ce the NRC n ow cla ims tha t it gr a n ts petition s, eve n whe nit re fuses to in stitute the proceedin gs descr ibed in Section it

is importa n t tha t the legislation specify tha t the Commission mustgr a n t a petition tha t meets the cr ite r ia by a ctua lly in stitutin g a

show ca use proceedin g .

I n a ddition , your bill , a s curr e n tly dr a fted , sets the sta n da rd of

r eview by cross re fe r e n cin g the a dmin istr a tive procedure a ct .

Give n the defer e n ce tha t is usua lly shown by Fede ral courts to admin istr a tive a ge n cy de cision s , we recomme n d tha t Con gress explicitly e n un cia te the sta n dard of review to be the a rbitr a ry a n d ca pr iciou s or a buse O f discretion sta n da rd— tha t tha t be a ctua lly specified in the leg isla tion itse lf.Passin g this mode st legisla tion should be a ma tte r O f common

se n se a n d n ot O f con trove rsy . I n fa ct, a s you’ve a lr e a dy n oted, most

O f the e n viron me n ta l sta tute s like the Cle a n Wa te r A ct, the Clea nA ir A ct, the Re source Con se rva tion a n d Re cove ry A ct, ha ve provision s for citize n suits . The r ight to judicia l r eview O f pe tition s tothe NRC pa le s beside the r ight O f citize n s to su e for e n for ceme n t O f

the law.

If I could, I wa n t to re spon d to the a rgume n ts tha t the Comm ission ma de . They a r g ue tha t pa ssin g your bill would sin gle them ou t

29

amon g other age n cies whe n , in fa ct, it would on ly g o a ve ry smallpa rt O f the way to addressin g the un eve n pla yin g fie ld as betwe e nthis sta tute , this age n cy, a n d othe r e n viron me n ta l regulatory regime n s . If the NRC is a greeable , a n d you a re , we would be ha ppy tosee the bill , r a the r tha n address petition s , in stitute citize nsuits un de r the Atomic En ergy A ct. Tha t’s somethin g tha t wewould support . Your bill would be a first step in tha t dire ction a n d

if they would rathe r make the tra de , we would certa in ly a ccept it. Iwholehe a rtedly a gr ee with the comme n ts tha t you ma de in yourO pe n in g sta teme n t about citize n suits a n d public pa rticipation , a n d

disa gree with the NRC’

s commen ts . They con ten d that be ca usethey ha ve a pe rvasive regulatory regime , the refore citize n suits a ren ot n ecessa ry . I n fa ct, the ir r egulatory regime does n ot a llow for

the kin d O f public ove rsight that a citize n suit does in volve a n d, in

fact, we thin k tha t it’

s e ssen tia l to have public pa rticipa tion n ot

on ly on the licen sees, bu t on the age n cy itse lf. The NRC cle a rlyca n n ot ove r see itse lf. The pr iva te attor n ey ge n e ra l role tha t is

se rved by citizen suits would be a t least as vita l in this a re a a s it

would be in othe r en viron me n ta l regula tion s .

Furthe rmore , Con gr ess should n ot fee l tha t pa ssin g this legi slation would ope n up the proverbia l floodga te s O f litiga tion . Most citizen in terven e r s simply do n ot ha ve the time , mon ey, or r e sourcesto cha llen ge petition den ia ls in court. Mor eover , the record shows ,a n d the NRC has alrea dy a ttested to this , tha t pr ior to the Hecklerv . Cha n ey decision , the agen cy wa s n ot ove r ly burden ed by judicialr eview O f petition de n ia l . I n ote tha t Cha irma n Se lin , de spite be in gprodded a couple of times by membe r s O f the pa n e l , did n ot claimtha t passage O f this bill would ove r ly burde n the age n cy a n d it

would n ot sig n ifica n tly in cr ease the r esources a lloca ted or the costto the a ge n cy. I n fa ct, before the Heckle r decision , the r e wa s n ot a

sin gle case i n which a reviewin g court rema n ded a Commissionrulin g on a 2 .206 petition for a n expla n a tion , let a lon e a case inwhich a court orde red the agen cy to ta ke a n a ction which it did n ot

regard as a ppropr ia te . This sta n dard in your bill would certain lyn ot allow for automa tic litigation O f all petition de n ia ls . I n fact, thesta n da rd is somewha t str icte r than the on e tha t was passed by theHouse In te r ior Committee last year .

We do hope tha t ma kin g the se petition de n ia ls reviewa ble wouldin still some sma ll me a sure O f accoun tability for the action s O f a na gen cy tha t ha s ve ry little cr edibility with the public . The NRC isseve re ly limitin g public pa rticipa tion in the a rea of g rave con cer nto ma n y citize n s— tha t is its licen sin g r en ewa l prog ram . The

agen cy ha s limited the scope of re n ewal proceedin g to on ly thosea g e

-r e lated issues tha t a re un ique to the re n ewal term . The NRC isn e ither going to r eview the docume n ts which con stitute the cur r en tlicen sin g ba sis , n or con firm tha t a r eactor is in complia n ce withthe regula tion s it poses un de r the curre n t lice n se . Tha t mea n s tha teve n if a pla n t is expe r ie n cin g chron ic ma n ageme n t problems be a rin g directly on sa fety, tha t citizen s in tha t area would n ot ha ve ther ight me re ly to a hear in g on those issue s befor e a decision is ma deto exte n d tha t pla n t ’s O pe r a tin g lice n se for deca de s .

I n fa ct, I wan t to quote from Ha l Lewis, the Cha ir O f the NRC’

s

Advisory Committee on Re a ctor Sa fegua rds, Subcommittee on Regu la tory Policie s a n d Pr a ctice s, on the subje ct O f licen se r e n ewal. He

30

said the , The ge n eral argume n t that the fact that on e ha s O pe rated safe ly for a fin ite pe r iod O f time prove s that the safety leve l isadequa te is just n ot sta tistically right, be cause there isn

’

t thatmuch history in the industry . And , it

’s a trap becau se in otherag e n cies , for example , people have u sed the argument tha t theyhad 24 shuttle flights to show that the leve l of safety was adequateand, in retrospect, afte r on e disaste r , it turn ed ou t n ot to be . The

Soviets, a fte r Che rnobyl, sudde n ly discove red the leve l of safetythey had for Chernobyl was n ot adequate . B u t, the day be foreChern obyl they would have said it was adequate on the basis O f Opcrating history .

”This makes the review ability O f the show cause petition s all the

more important. The NRC curr e n tly has n o regulation s which es

tablish standards when a reactor should be closed down . SO , this isvery important to the question O f aging reactors— if citizen s arguethat a reactor has aged to the point that it’s n ot safe to Con tinueO perating, they would need'

the petition proce ss in order to makethat argument.

We que stion the Commission’s priorities in expe n ding resources

on the que stion of license exte n sion beyon d a 4 0-year lifetimewhen, in fact, n o nuclear plant has lasted more than 30 years— n o

commercial powe rpla n t— and the two lead plants for ren ewal haveru n into problems that have preven ted applications from be in gfiled . Many othe r reactors have experie n ced premature a g ing du eto the a ffects O f prolonged exposure to radiation . You ’ve alreadydiscu ssed the embrittlement problem and, in light O f this and otherserious problems, the agency’

s resources would be bette r spe n t furtherin g the safe O peration O f n uclear powerplants under the ir current licen se s rather than looking ahead to a ren ewal proce ss whichis still hypothetical .

Another distu rbin g area is the NRC’

s forging ahead with an in itia tive to

“

eliminate requ iremen ts ma rg inal to safety”

. This vestigeof the Bush-Q uayle de reg u latory pu sh is prompted by the fact thatmany nuclear plants a re economically n on competitive . I n its rushto he lp bolste r the profits O f nuclear utilitie s, the NRC may shiftfrom regulation to regulatory gu ide s that do n ot carry the force of

regulation . I t is su rprising tha t the NRC would be puttin g re

sources into dereg u lation a t a time when many reactors do n ot

mee t the esta blished sa fety requ ireme n ts. A particu larly eg regiousexample is the case O f The rmo-L a g , a fire protection substance thatdoes n ot work. The NRC has denied a petition on Thermo-L a gand is n ow trying to de regulate the problem away . A curre n t example that again makes the point that we need to bring judicial

A gain, we support your bill, look forwa rd to he lpin g to en act it,and we ’

dbe happy to take an y questions .

Se n ator LI E BERM A N . Thank you , Mr . Magavern , for your testimon y . I t was ve ry he lpful .Why don

’

t you respon d a little more to what seemed to be pe rhaps the major criticism O f the bill that we

’

ve pu t in on judicialreview ability, and tha t is that it wou ld create a flood O f litigation .

Ma ybe I should focus a little bit b askin g you how difficult it is tobrin g a suit for judicia l review of

yan NRC decision or , in anothe r

31

se n se , what type of con strain ts do orga n iza tion s such a s your s ,which would pre suma bly file such suits ha ve?M r . MAGAVERN . We ll , in fa ct, we a re in a better position tha n

most orga n iza tion s would be to file suits , a n d for us it would ce r

ta in ly be a question O f r e sources in volved , time , the legal sta ff thatwould ha ve to be in volved , court expe n ses , a n dwhethe r , in the e n d,

it would really make a diffe re n ce compa red to othe r wa ys we couldbe expen din g ou r resource s . Ma n y O f the citize n groups a cross theCoun try, with whom we work, would have fa r less ca pa bility tha nwe would have . We kn ow, in workin g with some groups tha t ha vebeen tryin g to litiga te on issue s on the ir pa rticula r plan ts , tha tthey ha ve extreme difficulty in r a isin g the mon ey to reta in lega lcoun se l , a n d this is somethin g tha t could n ot be don e routin e ly bythose citize n s, bu t would on ly be don e in extraordin a ry circumsta n ces .Se n a tor LI EBERM AN . L et me ask you what effe ct you thin k judi

cia l review ability, if en acted , would ha ve on the NRC? DO you

thin k tha t the NRC would like ly de n yfewer petition s?

M r . MAGAVERN . We ce rta in ly don t thin k tha t it would make a

dramatic differe n ce in te rms O f NRC public health a n d safety regula tion s. Howeve r , we do thin k tha t the NRC n eeds to be more a c

coun table . I thin k the ir testimon y toda y showed that they se em to

thin k tha t the ir in te r n al workin gs a re so comprehe n sive a n d so a c

cur a te tha t they would basically take it as a n in sult to ha ve ou t

side scrutin y by a court . This is exactly a n example O f the problemthat we

’

re tryin g to remedy, that we n eed citize n ove r sight a n dwen eed judicial oversight, a n d tha t would he lp br in g the NRC close rto the r eality O f e n viron me n tal regula tion as it

’

s been upda ted byva r ious e n viron me n tal sta tutes tha t ha ve left the Atomic En ergyA ct

'

somethin g of an a n a chron ism . A n d, also the attitude O f citize n sa cross the Coun try tha t ha ve con ce r n s about the sa fety O f n ucle a rpowe rpla n ts and who r ea lly don

’

t fee l that the NRC is adequate lymeetin g those con ce r n s .

Sen a tor LI EBERM AN . How about the con cern tha t was expre ssedthat judicial r eview would divert resource s from he a lth a n d safetyoversight? Obviously, you’

re con ce rn ed a bout tha t k ind O f oversight. DO you worry about that pote n tia l con seque n ce O f judicialreview ability?M r . MAGAVERN . I thin k tha t the best re spon se s to that que stion

were really give n by Chairma n Se lin who, a s you kn ow, O pposesyour bill , and was certa in ly urged here this morn in g to say that itwould do what you

’

ve asked a bout— pu t a burden on the age n cy

an d possibly be be tte r spe n t othe r places— and he was very can didin sa yin g that, actually, they already do most O f the work thatwould be involved i n the ir own review a n d that, the refore , judicialreview would n ot add a sign ificantly greate r burde n .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . L et me ask you , fin ally, on this subject . Itake it, from wha t you said ear lier , that you

’

re in te n din g to participa te in those public workshops . Is that cor rect?M r . MAGAVERN . Yes, the NRC called us last week and just yes

te rday we rece ived the wr itte n mate r ials tha t they’

re preparing .

We do inte n d to pa rticipa te , howeve r , espe cially afte r rea din g theba ckg round pa pe r , we do n ot see tha t process as be in g a substitutefor the legisla tion that you a n d Se n ator Ba ucus ha ve in troduced .

32

Senator LI EBERM A N . I presume that you will raise the question of

judicial review ability on tha t occasion ?M r . MAGAVERN . We g ua rantee it.

Senator LI EBERM A N . OK. L et me ask you , fin ally, whethe r youhave a n y specific views on a n y of the other NRC leg islative proposa ls. I t wasn

’

t exactly within the target of your coming here , bu tsince you

’

re he re , you do and I ’d we lcome them— e ithe r n ow or

late r in writin g .

Mr . MAGAVERN . We took a look a t the legislative package and itmostly seemed to u s to have n o problems . The on e con cern that wedid have , which I

’

ve communicate d to your counse l, is whether thecivil monetary pe n a ltie s that they wan t to institute could be usedto intimidate whistle-blowers . I know you’

re holding a hearing on

whistle-blowers n ext mon th and this is something that we thinkmay be a problem— we don’

t know for sure that it is, bu t it bearssome scrutiny .

Se n ator LI EBERM AN . I’

m glad you brought that to ou r atte n tionand we

’

ll be sure to raise the question a t that hearing n ext mon thon the whistle-blowers.

I thank you both for be ing here . I thank you for your testimony,and we look forwa rd to your con tinu ing involvemen t in these questions .The record of the hearing will remain O pe n for three weeks for

the statements and respon se s to que stion s .I thank eve ryon e who ha s participa ted and this will formally

recess the hearing.

[Whe reupon , a t a .m . , the subcommittee adjourned , to reconve n e a t the call O f the Chain ][Stateme n ts submitted for the record and the bills under con sid

st ation followz]

I VAN SELIN , CHAIRMAN , NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMI SSION

M r . Cha irma n a n d membe rs of the Subcommitte e , the Nu clea r Reg ula tory Commission (NRC) is plea sed to a ppear before you to discu ss S. 1 162; the Nu clea r Reg ulstory Commission

’

s a u thoriza tion for fisca l yea rs 1994 an d 1995, a n d S. 1 166, theNRC s leg isla tive proposals. We apprec ia te you r in te rest a n d su pport for these bills,a n d look forward to workin g with you as they prog ress throu g h Con g ress. As yourequ ested in you r letter of in vita tion , we a re also providin g commen ts on S. 1 165,the Nu clea r En forceme n t A ccou n ta bility A ct of 1993 . A ccompa n yin g me today a re

Commission e rs Cu rtiss, Remick, de P lan qu e , the NRC’

s Execu tive Director for O pera tion a a n dChief Fin a n cia l O ffice r , a n d the Ge n eral Cou n sel.The NRC is respon sible for en su rin g tha t civilia n uses of n u clea r ma te ria ls in the

Un ited Sta tes— ln the O pe ra tion s of comme rcia l n u clea r power pla n ts, a n d in medical, academic, a n d in dustrial a pplica tion s—a re ca rr ied ou t in a way which will ade

qu a te ly prote ct the public health a n d sa fety, the e n viron men t, a n d the n a tion al se

en t ity . I n implemen tin g reg ula tion s, we work to pre ven t u n n ecessa ry road blocksfor the in dustry we reg ula te while e n su rin g tha t ou r respon sibility to public hea ltha n d sa fety is n ot compromised.

B efore describin g the deta ils of ou r budg et, we wou ld like to provide a n overallpe rspective on the NRC

’

s pr in cipa l prog rams a n d explain how we a re u sin g ou r te

sou rces to fu lfill ou r sta tu tory mission .

NUCLEAR REACTORSA pproxima te ly 55 pe rcen t of the NRC

'

s budg et requ est is directed to the con du ct

of ou r reg u la tory prog ram for commercia l n u clea r rea ctors . The major pa rt of theseresou rces is directed to oversee in g a n d improvin g the ove ra ll sa fety pe rforma n ce of

Ope ra tin g rea ctors a n d con du ctin g the resea rch n ecessa ry to su pport su ch reg u la

33

tory a ctivities . O u r rea ctor prog ram a lso in cludes resou rces to exte n d the lice n se

te rms for O pe ra tin g rea ctors a n d to certify n ew light wa ter rea ctor desig n s.

M a in ta in in g Safety a t L ice n sed Fa c ilitiesThe 109 rea ctors tha t a re licen sed to O pe ra te in the US . g en e ra te approxima tely

22 pe rce n t O f the Na tion’

s electricity . O ve r the past se ve ral yea rs, the O pe ra tion alsa fety pe rforma n ce O f US . n u clea r powe r pla n ts has con tin u ed to improve . This is

demon stra ted by the key O pe ra tion al safety in dica tors mon itored by the NRC, whichin clude forced ou ta g e ra tes, a u toma tic scrams while critica l, a n d sig n ifica n t even ts .

These pe rforma n ce in dica tors a r e depicted in the first three cha rts in the a ppe n dix

to ou r testimon y . I n g e n eral, the bette r pe rformers a ppe a r to ha ve rea ched pla tea uswhere cu rre n t pe rforma n ce levels a re close to re ason able expecta tion s while the

poorer rea ctors lag behin d in pe rforma n ce . I t n ow a ppe a rs tha t the most fru itfu lway for u s to redu ce ove ra ll rea ctor r isk is to con cen tra te ou r efforts on the poore r

performers to brin g them u p to the level a lready re a ched by the be tte r performe rs.

A lthou g h pe rforman ce is improvin g , we mu st rema in vigila n t to e n su re tha t exist

in g n u clea r powe r re a ctors a n d other licen sed fa cilities con tin u e to be O pe ra tedsa fely. A prin cipal sou rce O f in forma tion by which licen see pe rforma n ce is judg ed isthe Systema tic A ssessmen t O f L ice n see P erform a n ce , or SAL P prog ram . Un der this

prog r am, the pe rforma n ce O f ea ch n u clea r power lice n se e is eva lu a ted throu gh thepe riodic (u su ally every 18 mon ths), comprehe n sive examin a tion O f a va ilable da ta , in

cludin g in spection reports, special reviews, a n d licen sin g in forma tion . The pu rposeof the in teg ra ted SALP review is to direct both NRC a n d lice n se e a tte n tion preciselytowa rd those a reas tha t most affect sa fety a n d tha t n eed improvemen t .

The NRC’

s rea ctor ove rsight in cludes rea ctor in spection s, pa rticu la rly with the as

sig nme n t of a t least two reside n t in spectors to ea ch rea ctor site . I n a n effort to im

prove the in spection process, we a re modifyin g the SAL P progr am a n d the rea ctor

in spection prog ram to focu s even more on safety sig n ifica n t pe rforman ce . We will

pla ce more empha sis on SALP resu lts in shiftin g a fr a ction O f the NRC in spectionresou rces away from the bette r pe rformers to focu s on the poorer pe rformers . Sa fetywill be en su red while costs to the better performin g pla n ts will be redu ced, provid

in g addition al in cen tives for pla n ts to improve the ir pe rforma n ce .

A n other key NRC respon sibility is to en su re tha t ea ch n u clea r reactor is sta ffed

with tra in ed a n d qu a lified rea ctor Oper a tors. Towa rd this en d, the NRC licen ses all

pe rson n el a u thorized to ope ra te rea ctors a n d requ ires requ alifica tion examin a tion sto verify the ir con tin u ed proficien cy .

The NRC also establishes physica l protection requ iremen ts a t commercial n u clea rrea ctors. The Objective of ou r physica l protection requ iremen ts is to protect the

public from sabota g e-in du ced releases of radioa ctive ma te rial O ff the site . To esta b

lish a sta n da rd for protection requ ir emen ts, the NRC crea ted a desig n basis thr ea t

ag a in st which to protect—a hypothetical threa t combin in g in tellig en ce a n d techn i

ca l studies O u adve rsa ry cha ra cteristics— in a n a ttempt to set pru den t bu t rea son able sta n dards for secu rity a t the pla n ts.

The Commission believes tha t this is an appropria te time to ree valu a te the desig nbasis threa t for radiolog ica l sabota g e . M r . Chairma n , as you a re awa re , the prese n tthrea t sta temen t does n ot addr ess the u se O f a vehicle or the use of a vehicle bombag ain st a n u clea r rea ctor . To su pport this ree valu a tion , the sta ff has formula ted a n

a ction pla n a n d has made it a va ilable to the pu blic . P hase I of the pla n con sisted of

a ree valu a tion of NRC’

s position reg a rdin g vehicle threa ts , in cludin g a n examin ation of ea r lie r work, a n d O f the in tru sion a t Three M ile I sla n d a n d the bombin g a t

the World Tr ade Ce n ter . The sta ff’

s fin din gs a n d a recomme n da tion were prese n tedto the Commission on Ju n e 24 , 1993; the sta ff recomme n ded tha t the desig n basisthr ea t be modified to in clude protection ag a in st ma levole n t use of vehicles a t n u clea r rea ctors. We expect to a ct on the sta ff

’

s recommen da tion expeditiou sly . P hase I I

will ha ve two parts. The first pa rt will review other aspects O f the existin g desig nbasis threa t, su ch as g rou p size a n d weapon ry , to en su re tha t the existin g desig nbasis threa t remain s a valid basis for the desig n of protection systems a t n u clea r

fa cilities. The secon d pa rt O f P ha se D will review a n d a n alyze sig n ifica n t cha n g estha t ha ve occu rred in the rece n t past within the n u clea r powe r in dustry to en su re

tha t sa feg u a rds vu ln e rabilities ha ve n ot developed in cremen ta lly over the yea rs.

Addition ally, with reg a rd to sa fety a t lice n sed fa cilities, the Commission appreci

a te s the importa n ce played by sa fety a lleg ers. For in stan ce , the rece n t NRC I n spector Ge n er al report on Thermo-L a g fire ba rrie rs highlighte d the importa n ce O f al

leg ers in ide n tifyin g safety-sig n ifica n t issu es. The Commission ha s ju st recen tly re

ce ived the ID’

s report a ssessin g NRC’

s overa ll prog ram for ha n dlin g sa fety a lleg a

tion s. Afte r the Commission ha s had a cha n ce to review the ID’

s report, we will con

34

side r the appropria te n ext steps to en su re tha t in dividua ls with sa fety con cern s feelcomforta ble brin g in g these con cern s to the NRC.

Resea rch

The NRC’

s n u clea r safety resea rch pprog ram will con tin u e to provide the in depen den t expe rtise an d techn ica l in forma tion n eeded to su pport ou r reg u la tory se

tivities a n d to develop the reg u la tion s an d g uidelin es n ecessa ry to implemen t Commission policy . I t is essen tia l to ma in ta in a n adequ a te resea rch ba se if the safe use

O f n u clea r powe r is to be con tin u ed; within the Fede ral gove rnmen t, this respon sibility fa lls almost en tirely on the NRC. Nevertheless, as rea ctor issu es a re resolveda n d rea ctor desig n test prog rams a re completed, we ar e able to rea lize some redu etion s in the resea rch prog ram.

M a in ten a n ce a t O pera tin g Fac ilitiesB eca use the Commission believes tha t improvedma in ten a n ce prog rams will resu lt

in en han ced pla n t sa fety , we require licen sees to mon itor the effectiven ess ofte n a n ce activities for sa fety-sig n ifica n t pla n t equ ipmen t. The requ iremen t is ex

pressed ln a performa n ce-based ru le tha t allows lice n sees the flexibility tothe ir existin g programs to the g re a test exten t possible . We pla n to evalu a te the effectiven ess of ma in te n a n ce prog rams by compa rin g system pe rforma n ce ag ain st licen ase established goals in stead of con cen tra tin g on the ma in te n a n ce process. M ost

importa n tly, NRC is takin g ste ps to bu ild on these ma in te n a n ce in itia tives to su p

port the licen se ren ewa l process, asdescribedbe low.

Re n ewin g O pera tin g L ice n ses

The O lder n u clea r power pla n ts ope ra tin g in this cou n try a re facin g expira tion O fthe ir orig in a l 4 0—yea r ope ra tin g licen ses— the ope ra tin g lice n se of the first pla n t ex

pected to seek licen se re n ewal expires in 2004—a n d a 10 to 15-yea r lead time isn ecessa ry for licen sees to plan for licen se re n ewal or alte rn a tive n ew ca pa city . O n e

O f the key issu es for in dustry is kn owin g the NRC’

s requ iremen ts for licen se re n ewa l u p fron t in order for them to make rea son able determin a tion s reg a rdin g the pu r

suit of lice n se re n ewal versus some other mea n s of replaceme n t power .

The issu a n ce of the NRC’

8 ru le on licen se re n ewal in Decembe r 1991 ma rked thecompletion of five yea rs of in te n sive work on this very importa n t reg u la tory issu e .

The rule establishes the procedu res tha t a u tility must follow in submittin g an ap

plica tion , defin es the requ iremen ts for licen se re n ewal, a n d iden tifies the in forma

tion tha t must be su bmitted as pa rt of a n applica tion as well as the requ iremen tsfor implemen tin g licen se re n ewa l p .rog ramsThe NRC sta ff ha s developed a proce ss for implemen tin g the licen se re n ewal ru le

tha t focuses on the effective ma n a g emen t of ag in g effects on the pe rforma n ce or

con dition of importa n t pla n t stru ctu res a n d compon en ts du rin g the re n ewal te rm .

The specifics of this process represe n t an approa ch to impleme n ta tion n ot expresslyaddressed a t the time of rule promu lg a tion . The Commission ha s made a va ilable tothe public severa l pa pers deta ilin g the sta ff's proposed implemen ta tion approa ch.

O u tside the lice n se ren ewa l ru le implemen ta tion , the NRC is con tin u in g on its

path to review licen se re n ewal applica tion s. The Depa rtmen t of En ergy origin a llyded lead la n t a

dpplica tion s for two n u clea r fa c ilities. B oth lead plan ts ha ve

e ither ca n cel ed or efe rred the ir lice n se ren ewal efforts for pla n t-specific rea son s .

As a resu lt the in dustry is ta kin g a differe n t a pproa ch to licen se re n ewal—on e tha t

is

r0

more g e n eric a n d less depe n de n t on pa rticu la r pla n ts. We fin d this a pproa ch to befrom a reg u la tory pe rspective sin ce it ma y pe rmit gen e ric resolu tion of

issu es cetin g severa l pla n ts, thereby redu cin g the n umbe r of sig n ifica n t pla n t-specific issu es to be resolved ea rly

'

in the process.

The B abcock an dWilcox (B &W) Own ers Grou p has sta rted discussion s with NRCon a licen se re n ewal prog ram for B &W-desig n ed fa cilities; du rin g the pa st fewmon ths they ha ve submitted seve ra l te chn ica l docume n ts to u s for re view. Submission of a lice n se re n ewa l applica tion from a membe r pla n t i n FY 1997 is on e of the

Objectives of the B & rqg rammAddition a lly, the othe r own e rs

'

ed tha t they a re 0 0 03 11 113 1)”e B a ltimore Gashas a lso submitte d the ir methodology for impleme n ta tion of the licen se re n ewalrule to the NRC for review.

Re formin g the L ice n sin g P rocess

The NRC established a process to re view fu tu re n u clea r

makes it possible to resolve sa fe a n d e n vironme n ta l issu es

a fte r , the sta rt of n u clea r powe r t con stru ction . The En e rgy P olicy A ct of 1992

codified this process, which provi as for sta n da rd desig n ce rtifica tion s a n d combin es

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

36

requ iremen ts for su ch a con ta in e r a n dwill re view the desig n when submittedby theDO E for certifica tion .

O u r hig h-level waste efforts con tin u e to keep pa ce with DO E’

8 prog ram as they

prowedwith su rface-based te stin g a n d in itia tion of u n derg rou n d explora tion a t the

Yu cca M ou n ta in site . I n M a rch an d November 1992, the NRC lifted its two Objection s to DO E

’

sa sta rtin g site cha ra cteriza tion . O bjection 1 dea lt with a n in adequ a te

desig n an ddesig n con trol process for the Explora tory Studies Facility , a n d O bjection2 iden tified the la ck of a qu alified qu a lity assu ra n ce prog ram for site cha ra cterize

tion . I n addition , the n umber of NRC reviews ha s in crea sed rece n tly in respon se to

DO E activities.

With reg ard to low-levelwaste , on e O f the n a tion’

s commercia l low-levelwa ste disposal sites cea sed disposal ope ra tion s a t the en d of 1992, a n othe r ha s restricted

acce ss to the Northwest an d Rocky M ou n tain compa cts, a n d the third site is sebed

uled to close to ou t-of-compa ct dispom by Ju ly 1 , 1994 . Sta te leg isla tion , sta te

budg et con strain ts, litig a tion , a n d pu blic con cern ha ve con tr ibu ted to dela ys in es

tablishin g n ew low-levelwaste disposa l site s. Howeve r , we do n ot be lie ve these problems are in su rmou n ta ble . P rog ress has bee n made by sta tes over the last yea r bothin sitin g a n d in issu e resolu tion . A t the same time , the tre n d towa rd lower wastevolume ha s con tin u ed to the poin t where cu rren t disposal requ iremen ts are on lyabou t half ofwha t they were a few yea rs ag o.

Decommission in g of Sites

We must be able to en su re tha t on ce a n opera tin g fa cility completes its u sefu l life ,the site is properly clea n ed u p. Thus, decommission in g a n d decon tamin a tion a re a n

in te g ral pa rt of the NRC lice n sin g process. We ha ve developed a Site Decommissionmg M a n ag emen t P rog ram , crea tin g a n en forceable reg ula tory framework tha t includes clea n u p sta n da rds a n d deadlin es to en su re the timely clea n u p of NRC reg u

la ted sites before licen ses a re te rmin a ted a n d the sites relea sed for u n restricted use .

The Site Decommission in g M a n ag eme n t P lan has a llowed the NRC to in crease its

oversig ht of approxima te ly 4 5 previously con tamin a ted sites to en su re sa tisfa ctoryclea n u p of low-level waste . Remedia l a ction a t two addition al sites has bee n com

pleted rece n tly , a llowin g these sites to be removed from the Site Decommission in gM a n a g emen t P la n . Substa n tia l clea n u p prog ress has been made a t five other sites. I

believe we ha ve bee n effective in commu n ica tin g to lice n sees a n d the public NRC’

s

expecta tion s for timely a n d effective remedia tion of these site s.

We a re a lso con du ctin g a n en ha n ced par ticipa tory ru lemakin g to establish sta n d

a rds for residu a l radioa ctivity for decommission ed sites. This rulemakin g in cludesworkshops a roun d the cou n try in which in du stry an d g rassroots e n vir onme n tal

g rou ps ha ve come to the same table to discuss the difficu lt issu es associa ted withthese sta n da rds. EP A is pa rticipa tin g in this effort. We a re hopeful tha t it willresu lt in the g en eric sta n da rds n eeded to pla n an d implemen t fu tu re . clea n u p a n d

decommission in g efforts in a more efficie n t man n e r .

O versee in g the Sa fe Use of Nu clea r M a terials

The NRC con tin u es to be respon sible for en su rin g tha t civilian uses of n u clea r

ma te ria ls in the Un ited Sta tes a re ca rried ou t in a way which will adequ a tely protect the public health a n d sa fety, the en vironmen t, a n d the n a tion a l secu rity . The

NRC licen sees in clude existin g n u clea r power rea ctor Ope ra tors a n d others who a re

prima r ily u se rs of n u clea r ma te ria ls a n d fu el cycle fa cilities.

The NRC reg u la tes a wide va riety of n u clea r ma terials lice n sees across the

Un ited Sta tes. There a re abou t licen sed medica l, academic, a n d in dustria lusers of n u clea r ma te ria ls subject to reg u la tion . O f these , a pproxima tely a re

lice n sed directly by the NRC; the other a re reg u la ted by the 29 sta tes tha t

pa rticipa te in the NRC A g reeme n t Sta te s P rog ram . Nu clea r ma te rials a re used in

la rg e in dustria l ope ra tion s su ch as the ma n u fa ctu re of rea ctor fu el, in the produ c

tion of radio pha rma ceu tica ls , in fabr ica tion of con sume r produ cts su ch as smokedete ctors, a n d i n ope ra tion s u sin g sma ll a n d la rg e qu a n tities of radioisotopes in ove rseven million medical diag n osis a n d trea tme n t procedu res a n n u a lly. Give n the la rg e

an d va ried u se of n u clea r ma te ria ls throug hou t this cou n try, the ove ra ll safetyrecord has been very . ,Howeve r we ha ve fou n d some wea kn essesFor example , on e 0 the most importa n t u ses O f byprodu ct ma te ria l is for medical

dia g n osis a n d thera . The la st se veral yea rsou rha ve see n in cre a sed Commission a t

ten tion directed a t e medical use fierog r am O u r reg u la tory prog ram isdirected to

wa rds en su r in g , in addition to wor r a n d pu blic sa fety , tha t

bths pa tie n t rece ives

the dose of radia tion or radioa ctive ma te rial tha t is prescn bedmbg;the physicia n . O c

cu rren ces O f misadmin istra tion s—pr ima rily cases in which othe ra py as dcliv

37

ered is diffe ren t from tha t which is prescribed— a re n ot common bu t a re ca use for

con ce rn abou t the effectiven ess O f the prog ram .

I n Septembe r 1992, sta ff prese n ted a ma n ag eme n t pla n for the medical u se pro

g ram to the Commission . A ddition ally , we ha ve rece n tly completed a n in te rn a l ma n

ag eme n t a udit to dete rmin e how well we a re impleme n tin g existin g prog rams; we

plan to con tra ct for a n in depe n de n t a u dit to assess the adequ a cy a n d a ppropria te

n ess O f the cu r ren t reg u la tory framework for medical u se O f byprodu ct ma te rial. We

a re a lso examin in g the rela tion ship betwee n the A g reeme n t Sta te prog rams a n d the

NRC-ope ra ted prog ramWe wou ld like to n ote tha t the NRC’

s ju risdiction cove rs on ly approxima tely 25

pe rce n t of the radia tion the rapy trea tmen ts. The rema in der , which in volve ide n ticalradia tion from diffe ren t types of sou rces, a re cove red u n de r a ra n g e O f sta te reg ula

tory progr ams. I t is fair to ask if con tin u a tion of the existin g scheme is the best wayto u se limited resou rces to a chieve the g oa l O f protection O f the pu blic . SO we ha vebee n g ivin g some thou ght to ways to address these issu es. I n this reg a rd, we ha vecrea ted a ta sk force to examin e , amon g other thin g s, the a lloca tion O f r espon sibil

ities amon g fede ral a n d sta te reg u la tory bodies to meet the n a tion wide g oal of e nsu r in g adequ a te protection of the radiolog ical hea lth a n d sa fety of the public , in

cludi n g pa tie n ts a n d health ca re workers in the medical u ses O f ion izin g radia tion .

The ta sk force recomme n da tion s will requ ire ca refu l evalu a tion a n d coordin a tion

before the Commission wou ld be in a position to make a decision on this ma tte r ,in clu din g an y eve n tu al recommen da tion to Con g ress for possible revision to ou r

sta tu tory a u thority . We pla n to provide the Con g ress with a n in te rim report on ou r

efforts to come to g rips with these issu es by A u gu st 6, 1993 .

The NRC has also u n dertake n n ew in itia tives in the reg u la tion O f major ma te rialslicen sees a n d fu el cycle fa cilities. L ast ye a r , NRC

’

s M a te r ia ls Reg u la tory ReviewT ask Force r eported its fin din g s a n d recomme n da tion s con cern in g deficie n cies a n d

n eeded improvemen ts in the licen sin g a n d reg u la tion O f major ma te r ia ls lice n see s.

The NRC is n ow respon din g to those recomme n da tion s by developin g a bette r reg u

la tory framework for licen sin g a n d in spection . The NRC has a lso con du cted a reg u

la tory impa ct su rvey for fu el cycle a n d major ma te r ia ls licen sees to dete rmin e theimpa ct O f NRC a ctivities on these lice n sees in orde r n ot to impose u n n ecessa ry bu rden s in adve rte n tly .

M ANAGEM ENT AND SUPPORTA pproxima tely 30 pe rcen t O f ou r bu dg et requ est is for the day-to—day ma n ag eme n t

O f the a g en cy a n d the n ormal“

hou sekeepin g”costs assoc ia ted with keepin g the

ag en cy doors Ope n . However , eve n in this admin istra tive a re n a we ha ve a ssumedsig n ifica n t n ew respon sibilities in the past few ye a rs which a re pu ttin g g re a te r pres

su res on ou r a va ilable resou rces. These in clu de establishme n t O f a n I n spector Ge n er

al for NRC, in creased pa rticipa tion in in te rn a tion a l n u clea r a ctivities, collection O f

sig n ifican t addition al licen se fees, impleme n ta tion O f the Chief Fin a n cial O f fice rs

A ct, and con solida tion O f ou r headqu a rte rs employees.

I n tern a tion a l A ctivitiesThe NRC pa rticipa tes in a n umbe r O f in te rn a tion a l n u clea r sa fety a n d sa feg u a rds

a ctivities both on a bila teral basis a n d throu gh mu ltila te r a l org a n iza tion s like theI n ter n a tion a l A tomic E n ergy A g e n cy a n d the OECD Nu clea r E n e rgy A g e n cy . We

be lieve tha t ou r coope ra tive efforts in sha r in g sa fety in forma tion a n d Ope ra tion alexperie n ce se rve to make comme rcial n u clea r power sa fer throu ghou t the world a n den able the NRC to be n efit from the adva n ces a n d expe r ien ce of n u clea r progr ams in

other cou n tr ies.

M ost n otable this ye a r a re the expa n ded safety a ctivities with the Repu blics O f

the former Soviet Un ion (FSU) a n d the cou n tries O f Easte rn Eu rope stemmin g fromthe diploma tic in itia tives a t the M u n ich Summit a n d in L isbon . The a id pa ckag eoffer ed a t the Va n cou ver Summit also in clu des addition al fu n din g for safety assist

a n ce to Ru ssia n r ea ctors.

I n addition to n u clea r power pla n t sa fety, hea lth a n d en viron me n tal challe n g esa re other pote n tial ta rg ets for fu tu r e aid O f the FSU. The NRC is playin g a role in

the developme n t of a mu ch n eeded in teg ra ted pla n for overa ll assista n ce .

We a re n ow witn essin g the g rowth of commercia l n u cle a r power in A sia n n a tion s

su ch as Ja pan , T a iwa n , a n d Sou th Korea , whe re U.S. ve n dors a re a ctively compe tin g for rea ctor sa les, a n d the be g in n in g O f a n ew prog r am in I n don esia . The NRCha s techn ica l in forma tion exchan g e a g r eeme n ts with 27 diffe ren t cou n tries; most r e

cen tly we ha ve con clu ded a n ag reeme n t with I n don esia a n d ren ewed existin g a g reemen ts with Chin a a n d Greece . These ag reeme n ts provide a framework for bila te r a l

38

coope ra tion on n u clea r safety, sa feg u a rds, waste ma n ag emen t a n d en vironmen tal

protection , they help to ope n u p commu n ica tion cha n n els with foreig n n u clea r reg u

la tory org a n iza tion s so tha t they ha ve the mea n s to crea te a reg ula tory e n vironmen t simila r to wha t we ha ve here i n the Un ited Sta tes.

L icen se FeesThe NRC is requ ired by the Omn ibus B udg et Re con cilia tion A ct (OBRA) O f 1990

to collect approxima tely 100 pe rce n t of its an n u a l budg et from fees . Tha t represe n ts

a substa n tial in crease in fees from the previous requ ir emen ts to collect 4 5 pe rce n t of

ou r a n n u a l budg et . I n FY 1994 , the NRC budg et will be O ffset by rece ipts from Ii

cen se a n d a n n u a l fees estima ted a t $525 .7 million , with the rema in in g $22 million tobe a ppropria ted from the Nu clea r Waste fu n d.

To be fair a n d equ itable , the NRC impleme n te d the A ct by assessin g fees to esse n

tia lly a ll O f its a pplica n ts a n d lice n sees. A s you may expect, the NRC ha s rece ivedseve re cr iticism a n d compla in ts from licen sees beca u se of the in crease in fees ca usedby the requ iremen t to recove r 100 pe rcen t of the budg et. We believe these com

pla in ts ha ve merit where licen sees a re be in g cha rg ed for se rvices tha t do n ot directly ben efit them . For example , the NRC is e n g ag ed in a n umbe r O f in te rn a tion al aotivities, su ch as assista n ce to in te rn a tion al org an iza tion s or cou n tries which su pport

U.S. in te rests, tha t ha ve n o direct impa ct on NRC licen sees. Nevertheless, the costs

of these activities must be recovered throu gh fees assessed to NRC licen sees.

We a re addressin g these a n d other con ce rn s in respon se to the En ergy P olicy A ctof 1992 requ ireme n t for the NRC to re view its policy of assessin g a n n u al fees u n de r

OBRA-90 , solicit public comme n ts on the n eed to cha n g e su ch policy, an d recommen d to the Con g ress su ch cha n g es in existin g law as NRC fin ds a re n eeded to pre

ven t the pla cemen t of a n u n fair bu rde n on certa in licen se es. O n A pril 19, 1993 , the

NRC published a Federa l Reg iste r Notice tha t solicits public comme n ts; the commen t period expir es Ju ly 19, 1993 . A fte r evalu a tion of the comme n ts, we will submita report to Con g ress, in cludin g recommen da tion s for a n y sta tu tory cha n g es tha t a ren eeded. I would n ote , howe ver , tha t the elimin a tion of some of the con cern s will

O P ENNESS O FNRC’

S PROCESSE SA prima ry NRC respon sibility is to en su re in teg rity, ca n dor , a n d O pe n n ess in a ll

ou r a ctivities. En su r in g Open n ess a n d ca n dor in ou r processes ca n n ot be a ecom

plished by public sta teme n ts alon e ; it must be in corpora ted in how the NRC doesbusin ess a t every le vel. We fee l tha t the NRC ha s made g rea t strides in keepin g the

public in formed abou t wha t we a re doin g an d why, a n d abou t su ccesses a n d short

comin gs. We ha ve solicited the pa rticipa tion of the pu blic a n d ha ve be n efited fromtheir con tribu tion s. As in dica ted ea rlie r , the NRC cu rren tly has a n en ha n ced pa rti

cipa tory rulemakin g effort u n der way to esta blish radiologica l crite ria for decommission in g ma teria ls sites. We ar e O pen in g some en forcemen t con fere n ces to the

pu blic, we con du ct O pen meetin gs to discu ss ea ch Iice n se e’

8 pe rforman ce assessmen t,a n d the Reg ion al Admin istra tors n ow hold qu a rte rly briefin gs for the public a n d the

LEGISLAT IVE PRO P O SA LSThe Commission apprecia te s the Committee

’

s in terest in ou r se ven leg isla tive rec

omme n da tion s. O u r sta temen t descr ibes the ma in aspects of ea ch of the NRC leg isla tive proposals. Six of the proposa ls wou ld amen d provision s of the A tomic En ergyA ct; the rema in in g proposal wou ld amen d section 206 of the En ergy Reorg a n iza tionA ct of 1974 We also address a recen t bill in troduwd by Se n a tor L iebe rma n re la tin gto en forceme n t pe tition s .

l . E n ha n c in g Secu rity a t Nu clea r Fa c ilitiesEn su r in g the secu rity of n u clea r fa cilities is on e of ou r importa n t regu la tory re

spon sibilities. Three of the proposed ame n dme n ts to the A tomic En ergy A ct seek toe n ha n ce ou r ability to prote ct ag ain st the theft of n u clea r ma te rials a n d sabota g e O f

The first proposal wou ldmake u n a u thorized in trodu ction O f wea pon s, explosives,or othe r da n g erou s in strume n ts a t NRG Iicen sed fa cilities a Federal crime . There

ha ve bee n a n in creas n umbe r of reporte d in cide n ts where pe rson s withou t e u

thoriza tion ha ve bro t firea rms in to protected a rea s of NRC-reg u la ted sites.

While the motiva tion s behin d these action s a pea r to ha ve bee n u n re la ted to the

n a tu re of the facility, these occu rre n ces ha ve blig hted the fact tha t the re is n o

39

fede ral law tha t imposes cr imin a l sa n ction s a g a in st a pe rson respon sible for br in g - 1

in g a wea pon to a n u clea r fa cility .

E n a ctme n t O f this provision wou ld promote the n a tion a l policy O f ma in ta in in gcompa rable safeg u a rds for simila r n u clea r ma te r ia ls a t DO E-own ed a n d NRC-lice n sed fa cilities. Un a u thor ized in trodu ction of wea pon s or othe r da n g e rou s in stru

me n ts a t n u clea r fa cilities own ed by the Depa rtme n t of E n e rg y is a cr ime u n de r the

A tomic E n ergy A ct .

The secon d proposa l to e n ha n ce n u cle a r fa cility secu r ity wou ld make sa bota g e of

a n u clea r fa cility du r in g its con stru ction a Fede r al cr ime if the a ction cou ld jeopa rdize pu blic health a n d sa fety du r in g the fa cility

’

s O pe ra tion . Sabota g e du r in g thela te r sta g es O f con stru ction cou ld g o u n detected beca u se the in spection s tha t wou ldha ve discovered the sabota g e might a lready ha ve occu r red. Here , a lso, the r e a re n o

a pplicable cr imin al sa n ction s u n de r Fede ral law.

Fin ally , we propose a n ame n dmen t to the A tomic En e rgy A ct to a u thor ize g u a rdsa t NRC-lice n sed fa cilities to ca rry firea rms. M ost importa n tly, the effe ct O f this

amen dme n t wou ld be to su bstitu te Feder al sta n da rds for sta te sta n da rds in deter

min in g the a ppropr ia te n ess O f g u a rds a t these fa cility u sin g de adly force to preve n ttheft of n u cle a r ma te r ia ls ca pable O f be in g u sed for n u clea r explosives. Cu r ren tly,

sta te law g over n s the u se O f de adly force by g u a rds a t NRC-lice n sed fa cilities, a n d itva r ies sig n ifica n tly; in ma n y ju r isdiction s, the u se of fire a rms in these circumsta n ces cou ld resu lt in sta te crimin al prosecu tion .

While this ame n dmen t wa sfi rst proposed beca u se of the n eed to protect ag a in sttheft O f stra te gi c special n u clea r ma te rials, it wou ld a pply to a n y circumsta n cewhe re su ccessfu l completion O f the cr ime wou ld prese n t a n immedia te a n d directthrea t to the hea lth an d sa fety of the public . Recen t eve n ts ha ve con vin ced u s tha t

the re is a broade r n eed for this a u thority a t NRC-Iicen sed fa cilities. I n addition , e n

a ctmen t O f this provision wou ld promote the n a tion al policy O f ma in ta in in g comparable sa feg u a rds for sim ila r n u cle a r ma te r ia ls a n d fa cilities in the pu blic a n d pri

va te sectors. Gu a rds a t DO E fa cilities a lready possess this a u thor ity .

2 . E n ha n cemen t of NRC’

s I n vestig a tion a n d E n forcemen t A u thor ity

Three of the proposed ame n dmen ts wou ld e n ha n ce NRC’

s effective n ess in e n forcin g the sta tu tory provision s tha t fall u n de r ou r a u thority .

We a re proposin g to amen d a n En ergy Reorg an iza tion A ct provision tha t requ iresthe NRC to be n otified of defects or reg u la tory viola tion s a t n u cle a r powe r pla n tsa n d other NRC reg u la ted a ctivities where su ch defects cou ld crea te a substa n tia lsafety haza rd. This n otifica tion requ iremen t is n ow applicable on ly to in dividu a l O fficers or directors O f the bu sin ess tha t is in volved. A n y su ch in dividu a l who kn owin g ly a n d con sciously fa ils to provide prope r n otice is su bject to a civil pe n a lty . HOWever , it is u n clea r whethe r the bu sin ess e n tity itse lf ca n be pe n alized or whethe r a

n on -licen see is even covered by the rule .

We be lieve tha t the bu sin ess e n tity shou ldbe held respon sible , a n d tha t it shouldbe a ccou n table whethe r or n ot it is a n NRC licen see . This view is in a ccordwith the

g e n eral a pproa ch to reg u la tion u n de r the A tomic E n ergy A ct a n d, expe rien ce te llsu s, wouldbe more effective in dete rr in g fu tu re viola tion s O f the ru le .

In recen t yea rs, it has become in crea sin g ly a ppa ren t tha t civil mon eta ry pe n altiesshou ld rea ch a ll pe rson s who viola te NRC requ ir eme n ts, reg a rdless of their sta tus

as licen sees or n on -licen sees. For tha t rea son we a re also proposin g to amen d theA tomic E n e rgy A ct to make cle a r tha t the Commission has the a u thority to imposecivil mon eta ry pe n alties u pon all pe rson s subject to its a u thority who viola te a Commission ru le , reg u la tion , or order issu ed u n de r section 161 b. , 161 i, or 161 O O f theA ct. Express a u thority for imposition of crimin al pe n a lties for most su ch viola tion sis already provided by the A ct.

We a lso propose a n amen dme n t to the A tomic En ergy A ct to pe rmit the NRC toobta in a ju dicially-a pproved, admin istra tive se a r ch wa rra n t to in spect the premisesof a n on -lice n see tha t is n ot pa rt O f the reg u la ted n u clea r in du stry . The wa r ra n twou ld allow the NRC to in spect a firm

’

s premises withou t prior n otice if the NRCreason ably be lieves tha t action by tha t firm may be respon sible for a viola tion tha tcou ld pote n tia lly a ffect the public hea lth a n d safety . Requ irin g use O f the subpoe n a

process, as is n ow the case , poses a high risk O f destru ction of eviden ce sin ce n oticea n d a n opportu n ity to con test mu st be g ive n . The admin istra tive sea rch wa rr a n t a uthority is n eeded to en su re tha t su pplie rs of NRO I ice n sees will n ot be able to de n yag en cy in vestig a tors a ccess to importa n t in forma tion .

3 . Elimin a tion of ACRS Report

NRC’

s A dvisory Committe e on Re a ctor Sa feg u a rds is cu rr e n tly requ ired to pre

pa re a n an n u al report to Con g ress on n u clea r safety rese a rch . The prepa r a tion of

4 0

the report ha s n ot proved to be a n effective use of the time of ACRS membe rs a n dthe Commission

'

s limited resou rces, so we a re proposin g to elimin a te tha t requ iremen t. Reports on sig n ifica n t n u clea r sa fety resea rch wou ld con tin u e to be providedto ou r con g ression a l oversig ht committe es u n de r ou r g en era l sta tu tory respon sibilityto keep them in formed.

4 . E n forcemen t P etition s u n der 10 CFR

En forceme n t petition s filedwith the NRC u n der 10 CFR 2.206 a re a n importa n t

pa rt of the ag en cy’s reg ula tory process. As pa rt of ou r effort to assu re tha t lice n sed

fa cilities a re Opera ted i n a ma n n er con siste n t with the public hea lth a n d sa fety, it isimporta n t tha t membe rs of the public ha ve a formal mecha n ism, in cludin g the 2.206

process, to brin g to the Commission’

8 a tten tion con ce rn s tha t a facility is n ot opera t

in g in con formity with reg ula tory requ ireme n ts or tha t addition al requ iremen tsn eed to be imposed to protect the public hea lth an d sa fety .

O

O

While the Commission ’

8 review O f 2.206 petition s is qu ite thorou gh, the Commisn recog n izes tha t there cou ldbe some improvemen ts in the proce ss. O n Decembe r

the Commission’

8 Ge n eral Cou n sel recomme n ded tha t a workshop be helda t which membe rs of citize n

’

s g rou ps, sta te a n d local governmen ts , the n u clea r mdustry, a n d othe r in terestedmembe rs of the pu blic cou ld provide the ir views on howthe 2 .206 proce ss could be improved. The Commission adopted tha t recommen da tionon M a rch 23 , 1993 , a n d a workshop will be held on July 28 , 1993 . We would expect

the 2.206 process to be thorou g hly re viewed a n d comme n ted u pon a t tha t workshop.

A resu lt of the workshop cou ldbe cha n g es to NRC reg u la tion s a n d practices.

The decision Whethe r to take.

an en forcemen t a ction in a g iven ca se is in here n tlya discretion a ry decision veste d in the ag en cy . The ag en cy must we igh va r iou s con

cern s in cludin g , bu t n ot limited to , the sa fety sig n ifica n ce of the ma tte r raised, thelice n see

’

8 a ction in respon se to the u n de rlyin g issu es or the viola tion s raised in the

petition , past problems with the licen see , the a va ilability of effective remedies an d

NRC resou rces. Cou rts ha ve lon g recog n ized tha t decision s whether to prosecu te a re

discretion ary a n d g e n erally should n ot be subject to judicial review. This culmin a tedin the Su preme Cou rt decision , Heckler v . Cha ney, which held tha t abse n t clea r , he

g ally man da ted stan da rds on how en forcemen t discretion wou ld be exercised, fede r

a l ag e n cy en forcemen t decision s a re n ot su bject to judicial review. The dra ft bill S.

1165 wou ld ha ve the effect of removin g the NRC from the scope of the Su premeCou rt decision . I f the Con g ress were to reexamin e the ba sic qu estion O f judicia lre view of en forceme n t decision s we would expect to be in cluded, bu t we do n ot see

the rea son to be sin g led ou t, sin ce we hea r ou r respon sibilities se riously .

The NRC ca refu lly reviews ea ch petition , fu lly develops the facts, a n d provides a

deta iled wr itte n respon se from a se n ior ag en cy officia l with respon sibility for theissu es raised. P rior to the Heckle r v . Cha ney decision , fewer tha n ten ca ses werebrou ght cha lle n g in g ag e n cy decision s, a n d the NRC en forceme n t decision wasu pheld in ea ch of those cases.

Un der the circumstan ces, the Commission does n ot believe tha t the proposed legisla tion , the Nu clea r En forcemen t A ccou n ta bility A ct of 1993, would produ ce be n efits a n d, in fact, it would remove n ecessa ry discretion . A ccordin g ly, we wou ld n ot

su pport the proposed leg isla tion . We hope tha t ou r in depe n de n t efforts, in cludin gthe Ju ly 28 workshop will produ ce a n y n eeded improvemen ts in the process .

FISCAL YEARS 1994-1995 AUTHORIZAT IONO u r fisca l yea r 1994 budg et requ est is $54 7 .7 million , a n in cre a se of $7 .7 million

above fisca l yea r 1993— less tha n a 2% in crease . O u r fiscal yea r 1995 budg et esti1

1

:

3tis $551 .8 million , less tha n a 1% in cre ase above our requ est for fisca l yea r

Well before submittin g ou r requ est toO MB , we u ndertook a comprehe n sive , thoroug h re view of ou r prog rams. This re view resu lted in a streamlin ed budg et requ esta t less than the ra te of in fla tion e ve n as we u n derta ke n ew respon sibilities. We a re

budg etin g in crea sed resou rces to keep pa ce with in dustry a ctivities associa ted withrea ctor licen se re n ewal a n d the sa fety re views an d in spection s associa ted with issuin g n ew powe r rea cto r lice n ses, a n d within ou r ma n a g eme n t a n d su pport prog ramwe ha ve requ este d fu n ds to stre n gthe n ou r fin a n cia l man a g eme n t systems, whe rerece n t IG reports ha ve in dica ted the n eed for improveme n t.

I n addition there a re prog ramma tic in crea ses n eeded to fu n d some of ou r n ew re

spon sibilities for reg u la tin g the Un ited Sta tes En richme n t Corpora tion’

s fa cilities,as requ ired by the En ergy P olicy A ct . Howe ve r , we fou n d tha t by followin g the

policy descr ibed ea rlier , we could make offse ttin g redu ction s in cu rre n t opera tion s

a n d in rea ctor resea rch Withou t compromisin g ou r sa fety respon sibilities. This

4 1

bu dg et requ est complies with the A dmin istra tion’

s Execu tive O rders a n d cost-cu t

tin g in itia tives.

The NRC con tin u es its efforts to iden tify bette r ways to a ccomplish ou r mission .

These efforts will allow u s to respon d to fu tu re n eeds while min imizin g the g rowthin resou rce requ ireme n ts. For example , the Commission has dete rmin ed tha t

cha n g es in workloadwill allow for the closin g of the Ura n ium Recovery Field O fficein De n ver , Colorado . The work tha t is cu rre n tly pe rformed in tha t office is expected

to decrease a n d the rema in der will be ca rried ou t by pe rson n el in ou r Da llas, T exas,reg ion al office as well a s by sta ff in headqu a rters . This a ction will resu lt in sa vin g sto the ag e n cy while con tin u in g the a ppropria te level of effort in this ar ea . A lso, we

cu r ren tly ha ve u n de r review the possible con solida tion of ou r Western a n d Sou th

West reg ion s . The review has bee n u n de rta ken in recog n ition of the cha n g in g work

load a s the n umbe r of re a ctors a n d lice n sees ha ve declin ed in the West. These re

views help to en su re the best applica tion of a va ilable resou rces a n d will help u s in

ou r effort to mee t the A dmin istra tion’

s goals for con tin u ed resou rce redu ction s .

CO NCL USI O N

I n con clusion , I would like to re itera te tha t the NRC is committed to meetin g its

respon sibilities for the sa fety of today’

s ope r a tin g rea ctors an d other NRC licen sed

a ctivities. We ha ve tried to sta y a step ahead of even ts; by so doin g we ha ve bee nable to u n dertake addition al respon sibilities an d in vest in those prog r ams whichaffect the fu tu re—streamlin in g the reg u la tory process, ren ewin g r ea ctor lice n ses,certifyin g sta n da rd rea ctor desig n s, a n dma n ag in g waste disposal— While slig htly re

du cin g ou r budg et in re al te rms. We will con tin u e to do all of this in a ma n n er tha t

fa cilita tes pu blic u n dersta n din g of ou r reg ula tory process.

The deta ils of ou r budg et requ est for fisca l yea r 1994 an d bu dg et estima te for

fiscal yea r 1995 ha ve bee n provided to you r Committee . The requ est a n d estima te

a r e in cluded a s a n a ppe n dix to this sta temen t, a nd are summa r ized in two cha rts:

Cha rt 4 summa rizes ou r budg et in te rms of NRC’

s prin cipal prog ram objectives a n d

illu stra tes cha n g es to ou r prog r am requ ir eme n ts a n dCha rt 5 depicts a g ross alloca

tion of resou rces to ou r two prin cipal prog rams.

I n the Commission’

s-view this prog ram is n ecessa ry to en su re effective reg u la tion

of an in du stry which tou ches virtu ally eve ry fa cet of America n life .

M r . Chai rma n , this con cludes ou r prepa red sta teme n t. M y fellow Commission ersa n d I will be ple ased to a n swer a n y qu estion s tha t you a n d the Su bcommittee may

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4 7

UNITED ST A TES

NUCL EA R REGULA TO RY CO M M ISS IO NwA snmcrou . a t . 2115554100 1

Se p t embe r 2 3 , 1 9 9 3

The Hon or a b l e Jose ph I . L i e be rma n , Cha i rma nSu bc ommi t t e e o n Cl e a n A i r a n d Nu c l e a r Re g u l a t i on

Commi t t e e on En v i r onme n t a n d P u b l i c wor ksUn i t e d St a t e s Se n a t e

Wa sh i n g t on , DC 2 0 5 1 0

De a r Mr . Cha i rma n

I n r e spon s e t o you r l e t t e r da t e d Ju ly 2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , e n c lose d a r e

r e spon s e s t o qu e s t i on s you pr ov i de d f or t he r e c or d f or t he

Su bc ommi t t e e 's Ju n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 3 , h e a r i n g on t he Nu c l e a r Re g u l a t or y

Commi s s i on 's pr opos e d a u t hor i za t i on b i l l f or f i s c a l ye a r s 1 9 9 4

a n d 1 9 9 5 a n d a s s oc i a t ed l e g i s l a t i ve pr oposa l s .

S i n c e r e ly ,

“

De n n i s R . Ra t hbu n , Di r e c t or

O f f i c e o f Con g r e s s i on a l A f f a i r s

En c l osu r e s

A s St a t e d

4 8

Sect ion 8 of the NRC’s leg i slat ive proposal would

provide the NRC wi th author i ty to conduct war r a n tless

searches of appl i can ts for a NRC l icen se , NRC

l i ce n sees, and pe rson s who sell n ucle ar equ i pmen t toNRC l i censees .

To what exten t does NRC alr e ady have such author i ty?

NRC alr e ady has the author i ty to conduct wa r r an tless sear ches of the pr emi se s

of a ppl i can ts , l i cen sees , and other per son s subject to sect ion 206 of the

En e rgy Reorg a n i zat ion Act . The proposed sect ion 161 of the Atomi c

En e rgy Act (con ta i n ed i n sect ion 8 of S. on conduct of searches of

pr emi ses of such person s, expressly provides such author i ty on ly i n order to

avoid a ny con t r a ry impl i cat ion be i n g dr awn from the addi t i on of the n ew

l an g uag e con ta i n ed i n sect ion 161

4 9

To wha t exten t would thi s leg i slat ion provide the NRCwi th addi t ional author i ty , and why i s thi s addi t ion al

author i ty n ecessary?

Cu r ren tly , NRC can obta i n i n forma t ion from a par ty that i s not par t of the

perva sively r eg u lated n uclear i ndustry on ly by subpoen a or through a

war ran tless search i f the party con se n ts to i n spect ion . An admi n i str at ivesea rch war r an t can not be obta i n ed to i n spect the premi ses of such a par tybecau se feder al cour ts have held that , absen t expl ic i t statutory author i ty , an

admi n istr at ive war r a n t may not be obta i n ed i f Con g ress has g r an ted su bpoen apowe r to an ag en cy . Use of the subpoen a process , where not i ce and an

opportun i ty to con test mu st be g iven , poses a hi gh r i sk of destruct ion of

evidence .

The amendmen t proposed by sect ion 8 of NRC’s leg i slat ive proposal would

prov ide n ew author i ty for the NRC to obta i n judic i ally - a pproved,

admi n i strat ive war r an ts for the pur pose of se archi ng the pr emi se s of f i rms

that are not part of the pervasively reg ulated n uclear i ndust ry . Such a

wa r r an t could on ly be used when the NRC reason a bly be l i eves that act ion s bythe f i rmmay be respon si ble for a r eg ulatory violat ion whi ch could poten t i allyaffect the publ ic health and safety . The Commi ssion bel i eves thi s author i tywould be extremely use ful i n our effor ts to i nvest i g ate a lleg at ion s tha t a

f i rmwhich i s not pa rt of the pervasively reg ulated i ndustry i s man ufactu r i n gde fect ive p roducts that a re be i n g suppl i ed to the n ucle ar i ndustry .

50

what othe r feder al ag en c i es have a uthor i ty to conduct

wa r r a n t less searches , a nd unde r whi ch c i rcumst a n ces?

A n umbe r of Feder al ag e n c i es have g en er a l i n spect i on a uthor i ty wi th r e spect to

the i ndust ry they r eg ulat e , i n cludi n g the Food a nd Dr ug Admi n i st r at i on (FDA) ,

the Mi n e Safety a nd Health Admi n i st r at ion (MSHA) , the Occup at ion a l Sa fe ty a nd

He alth Admi n i st r at i on (OSHA) , and the Con sume r P roduct Sa fety Commi ssi on

(CP SC) . P r act i ces wi th re spect to obt a i n i n g se arch wa r r a n ts for i n spect ion s

vary amon g these ag en c i e s . For example , most i n spect ion s c a r r i ed out by FDApur su a n t to i ts i n spect ion author i ty a r e wi thout a wa r r an t , though wa r r an ts

a r e obt a i n ed whe n a r e fusal of en try i s an t i c i pated. Thi s i s a common

approach amon g ag en c i es wi th i n spect ion author i ty . Howeve r , MSHA doe s n ot use

war r an ts at al l , a pr act i ce that was a pproved i n Donova n v . Dewey, 4 52

594 ( I n explor i n g the par ameters of wa r r an tless sea rches i n the

Don ovan case , which a rose unde r the Feder al Mi n e Safety Health Act of 1977 ,

the Supreme Cour t i ndi cated that i t would f i nd an a rg umen t that the n uclear

powe r i ndust ry could not be subj ect to war r an t less searches to be absu rd. )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

52

(con t i n ued)

(a ) Unde r cur r en t NRC pr ac t i ce , i f a sect i on

pet i t ion r a i ses a subst an t i al he alth or safety i ssue ,

wi ll the NRC i ssue a n orde r to show ca use? Si n ce the

Lor ion dec i sion , has the Commi ssion r epe a led or

alte red the subst a n t i a l he a lth or sa fety i ssuest andard for determi n i n g whethe r to g r a n t a sect ion

pet i t ion ? I f so, when , and howwa s thi s

st a ndard cha n g ed?

Under the cur ren t NRC pr act i ce , i f a sect ion pet i t ion were to r a i se a

subst an t i a l health or sa fety i ssue , whether the NRC would i ssue a n orde r or a

dema nd for i n format ion would depend on the p ar t i cula r c i rcumst a n ces . I f the

l i ce n see of the fac i l i ty whe re the sa fety i ssues exi sted wa s n ot a l r e adyaddr essi n g or did not promptly ag ree to addr ess the i ssue to the sat i sfact i on

of the Commi ssion (i n terms of substan ce , scope , a nd t imel i n ess) , then the

Commi ssion would i ssue a n appropr i ate orde r . I f , however , the sa fety i ssuealr e ady we re be i n g sat i sfactor i ly addr e ssed by the l icen see , a n order mi ght

not be n ecessa ry . I f the pet i t ion r a i sed a g en er i c safety i ssue a nd the

Commi ssion dete rmi n ed that immedi a te act ion was not n ece ssa ry to protect the

publ i c he alth and safety or that l i cen see s we re taki n g app ropr i ate cor r ect ive

ac t ion , then the Commi ssion wou ld con side r whethe r i t shou ld i n i t i a t e a

r u lemaki n g p roceedi n g or t ake other a ppr opr i ate act ion , such a s i ssu an ce of a

bu lle t i n , a g e n e r i c letter , or i ndust ry n ot i f i c a t i on .

min imu m (con t i n ued)

The Commi ssion has not repealed or altered i n any respect the “

substan t i al

health or sa fety i ssue ' standard for determi n i n g whether to g ra n t a sect ion

pet i t ion si n ce the Lgri gn dec i sion . However , as i ndicated i n the

previous par ag raph, when a

“substan t i al he alth or safety i ssue “

i s r a i sed, an

importan t con sider at ion i s determi n i ng whether some immedi ate act ion i s

n ecessary to address the i ssue .

Would the NRC have any object ion to the use of thi s

standard to gove rn i ts review of sect ion

pet i t ion s? I f the NRC objects to the use of thi s

standard, ple ase expla i n why the NRC forme r ly bel i evedthi s standard was appropr i ate , but now bel ieves i t i snot appropr i ate .

The Commi ssion con t i n ues to bel ieve that use of the”substan t i a l he alth or

safety i ssue ' st anda rd i s appropr i ate i n reviewof sect ion pet i t ion s,

but would object to hav ing this standard made the sole and exclusive test fordetermi n i ng whether to g r an t such pet i t ion s . As we have i ndicated i n an swe r

to quest ion 2(a ) , even i f the Commi ssion determi n es that a pet i t ion has ra i sed

a substan t i a l he alth and sa fety i ssue , there may st i ll be reason s why the

Commi ssion mig ht dec ide not to i n i t i ate a proceedi ng or i ssue an en forcemen t

order ag a i nst the l icen see . I n deal i ng wi th sect ion pet i t ion s, the

Commi ssion n eeds the flexi b i l i ty to con sider not on ly whether “substan t i al

health or safety i ssue s“has been ra i sed, but also whethe r the act ion

requested by the pet i t ioner is the appropr i ate respon se .

54

Why shouldn’t thi s sta nda rd be a ppl i ed as a

subst an t ive standard that would be r evi ewa ble unde r a

de feren t i al standard of r evi ew i n the Court of

Appeals?

For the r e a son s di scussed i n our an swe r s to quest ion s 2 (a ) and 2 (b) , the

di sposi t ion of sect ion pet it ion s does n ot depend solely on appl icat ion

of the”substan t i al health or safety i ssue”standard. . The re fore , thi s

st andard does n ot , i n the Commi ssion’s vi ew, provide a suff i c i en t basi s for

Cour t of Appeals review of den i als . The Commi ssion ’s en forcemen t

dec i sion s ar e , as are those of other ag en c i es, i nhe ren tly di scr et ion ary ,requ i r i n g the Commi ssion ’

s best judgme n t as to how to ut i l ize most e ffect ivelyi ts l imi t ed r esources to reg ulate i ts l icen sees . These dec i sion s a re

i nva r i ably c ase -spec i f ic , hi ghly dependent on the un i que c i rcumstan ces of each

case i n l i g ht of the Commi ssion ’s other con cur rent pr ior i t i es, and ar e not

suscept i ble to any formula or standard. There ar e no obvious sta nda rds bywhi ch a cour t could review the exerc i se of the Commi ssion ’

s di scr et i on i n

determi n i n g what act ion should be taken , once a"substan t i a l health or sa fety

i ssue”has been iden t i f i ed. For thi s reason , the Commi ssion be l i eves that the

j udi c i al dec i sion s holdi ng den i als to be un reviewable a re sound.

55

Str i ctly spe aki ng , S. 1165 would not provide for

judic i al reviewof NRC dec ision s not to take

en forcemen t act ion s -i t would on ly provide j udi c i alreviewof NRC dec i sions not to i n st i tute a show cause

proceedi n g . Uhat i s the Commi ssion ’s object ion to the

i n st i tut ion of a showcause proceedi ng i f the

pet i t ioner has demon str ated that there i s a

substan t i al health or safety issue? Why would the

Commi ssion not i n st i tute a show cause proceedi ng under

such c i rcumstances?

AN§§EB .

The Commi ssion has no object ion to i ssu i ng a showcause or other appropr i ate

order , i n respon se to sect ion pet i t ion that has demon str ated that there

i s a substan t i al he alth or safety i ssue , i f such an order i s necessary torequ i re a l i cen see to sat isfactor i ly address the i ssue . I f , however , the

l icen see already i s addressi ng the safety i ssue to the sat i sfact ion of the

Commi ssion , or i f i n formal mean s are e ffect ive to obt a i n l i cen see act ion , then

an order may n ot be n ecessary .

The re are sever al re ason s why the Commission mi ght not i ssue an order i n

re spon se to a substan t i al health or safety issue demon str ated i n a sect ion

pet i t ion . F i r st , i t should be emphasized that the Commi ssion has neverhesi t ated to i ssue an appropr i ate order when n ecessary to address substan t i alhealth or sa fety i ssues . I f , however , a l icen see i s sat i sfactor i ly addre ssi n g

QUEST I QN 2 (g ) (Con t i n ued)

a sa fety i ssue wi thout the Commi ssion havi n g i ssued a n order , the n there i s no

health or safety goal to be served by the i ssuan ce of an order , si n ce the

l i ce n see a lready i s doi n g what the order would have requ i r ed i t to do .

I f the order were i ssued after the l icen see ag r eed to do that whi ch the orde r

would r equ i r e , the n such an orde r would be con f i rmatory and the l i cen see would

have no r i ght to a hear i n g si nce i t had al ready ag reed to the act ion . I n

addi t ion , i t would be un l i ke ly that a nyon e else would be adver sely a ffected bysuch an order to improve safety so as to wa rr an t a hear i n g a fter the order wa s

i ssued. I f a hear i n g were to be held be fore the order became effect ive , thi s

could se rve a s a subst a n t i al di si n ce n t ive to the l i cen see to ag r ee to the

safe ty improvemen ts r e qu i r ed by NRC’s proposed order .

whi le the Commi ssion could g r an t a di scr et ion ary he ar i ng on such an order ,

con sider at ion would have to be g iven to resource impl i cat ion s, whi ch could

perhaps re sult i n shi ft i ng resources away fromother safety i ssues thatwar r an t atten t ion i n order to devote those resources to a hear i ng on an i ssue

whi ch i n NRC’s vi ew i s be i ng adequately addr essed. The Commi ssion con t i n ues

to bel i eve that i t should assi g n i ts l imi ted resources to those hea lth and

sa fety i ssues that wa r r an t atten t ion based on the i r subst an t ive si g n i f i ca n ce ,

un sat i sfactory r espon se by l i ce n see s , or othe r r e a son s whe r e i t i s n ecessaryfor the Commi ssion to compel a ppropr i ate act ion to addr ess a problem.

57

Hi thout a substan t ive standard, how ca n the NRC

determi ne whether to g ran t or deny a sect ion

pe t i t ion? Howcan a pet it ion er knowwhat to i nclude

i n the pet it ion i f the NRC does not spec i fy a

substan t ive standard to gove rn i ts r eview of such

pet i t ion s?

The substan t ive st andard -'substan t i al health or safety issue " -re lates to

whethe r act ion would be wa r r an ted to br i ng a l ice n see i n to compl i ance wi th NRC

r equ i r emen ts or to address a health or sa fety i ssue . Thi s standa rd i s used

r eg a rdless of whether the re i s a violat ion of re qu i reme n ts or whethe r the

l ice n see has already taken , or i s i n the process of taki n g , appropr i ate

cor rect ive act ion s to address the violat ion or health or safety i ssue .

This substan t ive standa rd does not dictate the par t i cular act ion the

Commi ssion may t ake i n respon se to iden t i f i cat ion of such an i ssue . The

Commi ssion ’s en forceme n t dec i sion s are , as are those of other agen c i es ,

i nheren tly di scr et ion ary , requ i r i ng the Commi ssion ’s best judgmen t as to how

to ut i l i ze most effect ively i ts l imi ted resources to reg ulate i ts l i cen sees .

These deci sion s are i nvar i ably case -speci f ic , highly dependen t on the un i quec i rcumst an ces of each case i n l ight of the Commi ssion ’

s other con cur ren t

pr ior i t i es, and are not suscept i ble to any formula or st andard. For the se a nd

simi la r reason s , the Supr eme Cour t , i n Hg gkler v . Chaney, he ld that such

ag en cy dec i sion s are commi tted to ag en cy di scr et ion and are not j udi c i ally

reviewable .

QUESTION 2 (e ) (Con t i n ued)Unde r sect ion a pe t i t ion e r n e ed on ly request some spec i f i c e n forcemen t

type act i on and set for th the facts that the pet i t ion er bel i eve s con st i tute

the ba si s for the re quested act ion . The pet i t ion er n eed n ot“

demon st r a te "

that the re i s a subst a n t i a l health or safety i ssue . Rather , i f the pet i t ion

alleg es a subst a n t i a l health or safety i ssue or a set of f acts that , upon

sa fety i ssue , or some i ssue of lesse r sa fety si g n i f i can ce whi ch st i ll re qu i r esremedi a l act ion a violat ion of requ i remen ts that does not r i se to the

level of a substa n t i al health or sa fety i ssue ) , then the Commi ssion uses the

g u ida n ce i n i ts En for ceme n t P ol i cy , 10 C. P . R. P a r t 2 , Appendix C, to determi n e

how best to exerc i se i t s en for ceme n t author i ty and di scr et ion to addr ess the

problem.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Though i ndividu als may be pe n al ized for violat ion s of requ i r eme n ts of the

Atomi c En er gy Act , the expect at ion i s that i n most cases any e n forceme n t

act ion would be t aken ag a i n st the appl i can t or l i cen see busi n ess . Sect ion 206

of the En ergy Reorg an izat ion Act i s the on ly provi sion fall i n g wi thi n NRC’s

r eg u la tory purvi ew that provides for c ivi l sanct ion s ag a i n st i ndividu a ldi r ector s a nd r e spon si ble off icer s wi thout also prov idi n g expl ic i t author i tyto pe n a l i ze the busi n ess en t i ty i tself ; usua lly i t i s the l i cen see that i sult imately accoun t able . The amendmen t proposed by sect ion 2 of MRC

’

s

leg i slat ive p roposa l would shi ft r epor t i n g emphasi s from the i ndividual to thebu si n e ss e n t i ty wi th respect to r epor t i n g requ i r emen ts reg ardi n g de fects i n or

r eg u la tory viol at ion s assoc i ated wi th a basi c compon e n t the en t i ty provides toa NRC-r eg ulated f ac i l i ty or act ivi ty . Though the ag en cy would r et a i n

author i ty to impose pen a lt i es on i ndividual di r ector s a nd respon si bleof f icer s , they would be subj ect to c ivi l pen alt i es on ly i f they have actua l

knowledg e of the r eport i n g r e qu i r emen ts , as well as the defect or fa i lure to

comply . The elemen t of kn owledg e would not have to be est abl i shed i n order to

impose a c ivi l pen a lty on a busi n ess that fa i ls to make a requ i r ed r eport .

A p r ima ry pur pose of imposi n g c ivi l pe n alt i es i s to i n cr ease the l i kel i hood

that act ion s n ecessary to protect the publ i c health and safety wi ll be

ide n t i f i ed and r e por t ed and that cor rect ive act ion wi ll be t ake n . To achi eve

thi s goa l , bUS l n e SS en t i t i e s themselve s must ma i n t a i n a work en vi ronmen t a nd

pr a ct i ce that e n cou r ag e al l i ndividu a ls who a r e i n st r umen t a l i n a busi n e ss ‘

s

ma n ag eme n t and ope r a t ion to make such r epor t s , reg a rdless of whi ch i ndi v idu a ls

61

QUESTION 3 (3 ) (con t i n ued)

con trol the busi n ess at any part i cula r t ime . NRC bel i eves that thi s can bestbe accompl i shed by maki ng the busi n ess the pr imary subject of the sect ion 206

r epor t i n g r equ i remen t .

The proposed amendmen t of sect ion 206 imposes a str i ct standard on busi n esse n t i t i es wi th r espect to r eport i n g of de fects . Thi s mea n s that i t wi l l be

easi e r to en force thi s sect ion ag a i n st a busi n ess tha n i ts of f i ce r s and

di r ector s, si n ce a hi gher threshold i s provided for imposi n g pen alt i es on

i ndividuals . We bel i eve this to be a n improvemen t over the pre sen t l aw. For

example , under curren t sect ion 206 , i f we ca nnot prove that a defect has beenbrought to a n off icer

’s atten t ion , the off ice r ca n not be held l i able . Si n ce

the off icer’s busi n ess en t i ty can not be held l i able unde r sect i on 206 , thi s

mean s that i t may n ot be possi ble to impose a c ivi l pen alty on anyon e for thefa i lu r e to r epor t the de fect or r eg ulatory violat i on . Unde r the proposed

amendmen t , i t wi ll be possi ble to impose a c ivi l pen alty on the busi n essen t i ty wi thout spec i f i cally provi ng knowledge of the defect by a respon si bleoff i cer or di rector .

Thus, the problem i s not that the Commi ssion has been reluctan t to i ssue c ivi l

pen alt i es for fa i lur es to not i fy , but r ather that the busi n ess i s i n sulated

ag a i n st be i ng assessed a c ivi l pen alty a nd, i n many i nst a nces , i t i s di ff i cult

to prove that an i ndividual di rector or r espon si ble off i ce wa s act ually awa r e

of a defect . Examples of case s where a c iv i l pen alty would have bee n i ssued

i f san ct ion s could have been imposed ag a i n st the f i rm a r e provided i n the

a n swe r to quest i on 3 (e ) .

62

The leg i slat ive memorandum also states that“Under

thi s proposed ame ndmen t of sect ion 206 , di rectors and

responsi ble off icers of busi nesses would be subject toc ivi l pen a lt i es on ly i f they have actua l kn owledge of

the report i ng requ i remen t imposed by sect ion 206 , as

we ll as the defect or fa i lure to comply wi th theAtomi c Energy Act or the appl i cable NRC r ule ,

reg ulat ion , order , or l icen se . Thi s st andard of

l i ab il i ty is not i n tended to be di fferen t from that

imposed on such i ndividuals under the current law.

However , under the amendmen t , the e leme n t of kn owledg e

wi ll n ot have to be establ i shed i n order to impose a

c ivi l pen alty on a busi ness that fa i ls to make a

requ i red report .

“

The NRC’s i nterpretat ion of current law -that actual

knowledge of the report i ng requ i remen t of sect ion 206

is a necessary elemen t of a violat ion of sect ion 206

appears con trary to the maxim that i g nor ance of the

law i s no excuse . I t also appears con t rary to theSupreme Court ’

s holdi ng s i n i n terpre t i n g cr imi n al

statutes (which typ ically requ i re more of a men tal

elemen t than c ivi l violat ion s) that , even when a

violat ion must be commi tted”kn owi n g ly , “kn owledge of

the law i s not a necessary elemen t of a cr imi n al

viola t ion whe re dan gerous ma ter i als are i nvolved and

the re i s a hi gh probab i l i ty of r eg ul at i on . For

Chemicals_£ernerati gn . 4 02 558 . 565 the

Supreme Court held that wher e “da n g erous or

de leter ious devices or products or obn oxious wastemater i als are i nvolved, the probab i l i ty of reg ulat ion

i s so g reat that anyone who i s aware that he i s i n

possession of themor deal i n g wi th themmust be

presumed to be aware of the reg ulat ion .

”Sg g alsg

why does the NRC bel i eve that cur ren t law'

requ i res

knowledge of the report i ng requ i remen ts for a

violat ion?

ANSWER.

when the En ergy Reorg an izat ion Act of 1974 was under con sider at ion by the

Con g r ess , the predecessor of sect ion 206 or i g i n ally appeared on ly i n the

Sen ate b i ll, and i t provided both c ivi l and cr imi n al pen alt i es for f a i lure to

r epor t defects . The r eport of the proceedi ngs of the Con fer en ce Commi ttee

demon st r ates that Represen tat ive Hol i f ield, co-cha i rman of the Commi ttee , had

ser ious r eservat ion s about the provi sion as i t a ppear ed i n the Sen ate b i ll .

Amon g other thi n g s, he was con cer n ed that the provi sion would be too ha rd on

the i ndiv iduals a ffected. P art of the compromi se wa s to el imi n ate the

cr imi n a l pen a lty , a nd to modi fy the l an g uag e of the c ivi l pe n alty provi sion .

The suggested modi f i cat ion of the c ivi l pe n alty provi sion proposed by theAdmi n i strat ion and accepted by Represen tat ive Hol i f ield would have i n serted

the phrase ‘knowing ly and wi llfully “ i n the provision , but as the proceedi ngs

moved along this lang uage evolved i n to“kn owi ng ly and consc iously , “ which

phrase was descr ibed by Represen tat ive Hol i f ield as“ protect ive words .

“

53;

Join t Con ference Co-i ttee Proceedi ng s on the Energy Reorg an izat ion Act of

1974 , H. R. 11510 , 93rd Con g ress, 2nd Session , 30-37 , 131-132 (October 2 ,The Con ference Re port i tself expla i ned that “

con sc iously “ wassubst i tuted for “wi llfully“ because the latter term is “more appl icable to a

cr imi n al act ,“

but did not discuss the mean i ng of e i ther term. Sg g Sen ate

Rep. No . 93-1252 , 93d Con g ress, 2d Session , 36-37 (October 9 ,(Con g ress used

“kn owi ng ly and wi llfully “ as the standa rd when , i n 1980 , i t

added the cr imi n al pe n alty provi sion of sect ion 223 b . of the Atomic Energy

There is no judic i al i n ter pret at ion of the elemen ts necessary for imposi t ionof a violat ion under sect ion 206 . Looki n g at other areas of law, on e f i nds

that whi le the courts generally do hold that successful prosecut ion of a

violat ion of lawdoes not requ i re proof that the violator was aware of the

law, this view is not wi thout except ion . There has, for example , been

conside rable devi at ion fromthe general rule i n tax cases. Sg g £hg gk_y,

111 S. Ct . 604 I n addi t ion , there i s a spl it i n the

c i rcu i ts reg ardi n g the n eed to prove actual knowledge of the law in cases of

for fe i tur e for fa i lure to r eport export of cur rency from the Un i ted States .

i n Cg rrg g gy, 770 F. 2d 1530 (I lth Ci r . wi th Un itgd §tg tg § v .

in Un itgg Stgtg ; guzzg ngz, 828 F. 2d 930 (3rd Ci r .

B lack’s LawDi ct ion ary (5th ed. ) does not con ta i n a def i n i t ion of

“knowi n g ly

and con sc iously , “but i t does def i n e

“knowi n g ly “ and

“knowi n g ly and

wi l l fully .

“B r i efly , these def i n i t ion s i ndi cate that the phr ase “

kn owi n g lya nd wi llfully “ me an s wi th awaren ess of the n atu re of the conduct and wi th

i n ten t to commi t the conduct . I n l i ght of the fact that“

kn owi n g ly and

con sc iously “ was del i ber ately subst i tuted for “

knowi ng ly a nd wi llfully “ by thecon fe r en ce commi ttee , i t i s not un r eason a ble to assume that “

knowi n g ly and

con sc iously , “

as used i n sect ion 206 , has some n ua n ce of me an i n g di fferen t

from “knowi ng ly and wi ll fully .

“

I n other words, somethi ng i s i n tended othe r

than , or i n addi t ion to, awaren ess of conduct and i n ten t to do wron g . He

bel i eve that thi s di fferen ce may be i n ter preted to be the addi t ion of

awaren ess of the leg al r equ i reme n t that per ta i n s to the c i rcumstances .

I n l i g ht of the above , the NRC bel i eves that the posi t ion that an i ndividual ’s

c ivi l l i ab i l i ty shoudd be predi cated on proof that the i ndividual was awa r e of

the st atutory duty to report r eflects a permi ssi ble readi n g of the exi st i n g

statute , a lthough a con tr ary posi t ion would also be reason able . (For

i n format ion r eg ardi n g the hi story of NRC i n ter pretat ion on thi s poi n t , see the

a n swe r to quest ion

66

Uhy does the NRC i n terpret sect ion 206 , for c ivi lviolat ion s, to requ i re a men tal eleme n t that the

Supreme Court has held is not even necessary toestabl ish cr imi n al l i ab i l i ty for a

“kn owi ng

“ violat ionof reg ulat ion s deal i ng wi th other dange rous mater i als?

The above-di scussed summa r izes the re ason i ng behi nd the i n terpretat ion that

knowledg e of the re port i n g re qu i remen t i s an elemen t n ecessary to est a bl i shi n gc ivi l l i ab i l i ty of i ndividual di rectors and r esponsi ble off icer s under cur ren t

sect ion 206 . (Thi s re ason i ng on ly appl ies to sect ion 206 and should not be

i n ter preted as n ecessar i ly appl icable anywhere else . )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

f i les of the last sever al years has n ot revealed any i n stan ce i n which an

i ndividual di rector or respon si ble off icer kn ew of a defect , but fa i led to

make a n ecessary re port because of a lack of kn owledg e of the sect ion 206

re port i n g requ i remen t . Typ i cally , provi ng knowledge of the defect i tself i s

the b iggest stumbl i ng block.

The 1983 an alysi s reveals the pauc i ty of di rect author i ty wi th respect to the

e leme n ts that have to be est abl i shed for a sect ion 206 violat ion . Nhi le all

of thi s may be of some academic and theoret i cal i n terest , the best mean s toresolve any uncert a i n t i es i s for Cong ress to en act NRC

’s proposed ame ndmen ts

to sect ion 206 . The immedi ate i ssues r a i sed by the NRC proposal ar e whethe r

the leg al l i ab i l i ty imposed by sect ion 206 should be extended to businessen t i t i es , what elemen ts should be requ i red to establ i sh the l i ab i l i ty of such

en t i t i es , and what di st i nct ion s, i f any , should be dr awn be tween the eleme n ts

requ i red to establ i sh l i ab i l i ty of i ndividuals and l i ab i l i ty of busi nessen t i t i es . Our an swe rs to these quest ion s are i ncor por ated i n the proposed

amendmen t .

En closure : As St ated

69

seaheesaseleeeEEZLzsu.

I s kn owledg e of the n ot i ce r equ i r eme n t of se ct i on 206 1s ) o f

t he En e r gy Reor g a n i za t i on A c t or 1 0 C. P . R. P a r t 2 1 s n e c e s

sa ry e leme n t for a“kn owi n g a n d con sc i ou s“ f a i lu r e to

prov i de tha t not i ce ?

Un de r se c t i on 206 ia ) of t he t osr g y Reor g an i sa t i on Act .

“[ a ln y pe r son who kn owi n g ly a n d con sc i ou sly fa l l s to pr ov i de

t he n ot i ce r equ i r ed by su bse c t i on (a ) sha l l be subje c t t o a

c i v i l pe n a l ty i: o . s . c .

-

ss1 6 .

'

i o c . r . a . zizci~

s imi l a r ly'

st a t e s tha t“l aln y di r e c tor or r e spon sible

of f i ce r who kn owi n g ly a n d con sc i ou sly fa i ls to prov i de

t he n ot i ce requ i r ed by s sha l l be subje ct t o a c lv i i

pe n a l ty Ne i t he r the st a t u t e n or the r egu la t i on'

de f i n e

“kn owi n g a n d con sc i ou s .

“

Re g i on I V ha s st a t ed tha t kn owledg e of the st a tu te i s

n e c e ssa ry . _ggg Memo for Don C. B aye s f r om John 7 . Col l i n s ,

O c tobe r 31 , 1503 . P r e suma b ly . t h i s v i ew i s ba sed on the

a r g ume n t that -s pe r son c ann ot “knowi n g ly an d con sc iou sly“

f al l to pr ovide n ot i c e u n le ss t ha t pe r son kn ows tha t n ot i c e

i s r equ i red.

Thi s i n t e rpr e t a t ion r u ns a fou l of the ma xim thi t i g n or a n ce

of t he law i s n o excu se . Xt a l so ema scu la t e s the

e n for ce abi l i ty of the r epo r t i n g r equ i r eme n t s of se c t i on 206 .

No a c t i on s cou ld be br ou g ht u n l e ss kn owledg e of se c t i on 20 6

73

i n addi t ion . the CP SA st a t u tory scheme impl i e s tha t kn owl

edg e of the CP SA i s not r equ i r ed for a v i ol a t i on of the

r epor t i n g r equ i r eme n t . t he CrSh make s i t un l awful . into;

2122 0 for a n y pe r son to ma n u fa ct u r e or se l l con sume r prod

u c t s tha t a r e n ot i n con forma n ce wi th appl i c able sa f e ty

st a n da rds or tha t have be e n ba n n ed . l s 0 . 8 . C .

An y pe r son who kn owi n g ly v i ola t e s the se . r equ i r eme n t s

i s subje c t t o c i v i l pe n a l t i e s . ls 0 . 8 . C. se con d

se n t en c e of se c t i on pr ov i de s tha t v i ola t i on s of

t he se r equ i r eme n t s or of t he r epor t i n g r equ i r eme n t sha l l be

t r e a t ed a s sepa r a t e of fe n se s for e a ch con sume r produ ct

i n volved for the pu r pose of compu t i n g c i v i l pe n a lt i e s

Se c t i on st a te s howeve r . thzt thi s sepa r a t e

of f e n se pr ov i si on sha ll n ot apply t o v i ol a t i on s of sect ion

2060 ta ) (l ) a n d (2 ) i f : (A ) the v i ol a tor i s n ot the ma n u fac

t u r e r or di st r ibu tor of the produ ct s i n volved: and (l ) the

v i ola t or“di d n ot ha ve e i the r ( i ) a c tu a l kn owledg e tha t hi s

di st r ibu t ion or sa le of the produ ct v i ol a t ed such pa ra g r aphs

or (i i ) not i c e f rom the Commi ssi on tha t su ch di st r i bu t i on or

sa le wou ld be a v i ola t ion of su ch pa r a g r aphs .“

i f kn owledg e of the -

r epor t i n g r equ i r eme n t i s spec i f ica lly

ma de a n addi t i on a l e leme n t for sepa r a t e v i olat ion s of

SS 2068 ta ) (l ) a nd (2 ) by n on -ma n u fa c t u r e r s a n d n on

di st r i bu t or s . the n by impl i ca t i on i t i s n ot a n e ce ssa ry

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

'

76

The con fe r ee s“subst i t u t e ldl the t e rm.

'con sc i ou sly

‘ for

“wi l l fu l ly .“the la t t e r t e rmbe i n g more appl i cable to a

cr imi n a l a ct .

“

19 . a t 37 . Con g r e ss the r e for e i n t ended tha t

the kn owledg e requ i r ed for the imposi t i on of c i v i l pe n a lt i e s

be a le sse r type of kn owledg e tha n Con g re ss wa s r equ i r i n g

for the imposi t i on of cr imi n a l pe n a l t i es . Thu s . i t wou ld be

i n con si st e n t wi th Con g r e ssi on a l i n t e n t t o i n t e rpr e t the t e rm

“kn owi n g ly“to me an kn owledg e zof

- the low;

I n sum. i t appe a r s tha t Con g r e ss di d not i n t end tha t a

knowledg e r equ i r eme n t su f f i c i e n t for a cr imi n a l of fen se be

r equ i r ed for a se ct i on 206 v i ola t ion . i n de f i n i n g the

me n t a l e leme n t n e ce ssa ry for a se c t i on 206 v iol a t i on .

Con g r e ss u sed a t e rmc n orma l ly re fe r r i ng to kn owledge of the

f act s e sse n t i a l to make an a ct i on u n lawfu l . and de l ibe r a t e ly

st a t ed i t wa s not usi n g a te rmde n ot i n g cr imi n a l i n te n t .

Thu s . the le g i sla t ive hi story of se c t ion 206 suppor t s the

con c lu si on » tha t kn owledg e of se c t i on 206 i s n ot a n e ce ssa ry

e leme n t for a sect ion 206 vi ola t i on .

Ca se L aw

Corpor a t i on . 4 02 O . S . SS" (1 97 l ) . a shippe r a l leg edly had

v iol a t ed a n i n t e r st a t e Comme r ce Comn i ssi on r eg u la t i on tha t

77

r equ i red t r an spor t e r s of ha za rdou s ma t e r i a ls to de scr ibe

t hose a r t i c le s on the shi ppi n g pape r s. The Un i t ed Sta te s

sou ght t o impose a c r imi n a l pe n a lty upon the shippe r un de r

i t U. S. C. 034 (f ) . whi ch st a t e s tha t whoever “kn owi n g ly

v i ol a t es“a n y r e g u la t i on of the i n t e r st a te Co—‘

e r ce Co-i ssi on sha l l be f i n ed or impr i son ed . The shi ppe r c la imed tha t

t he t e rm “kn owi n g ly

“ i n the sta t u t e r equ i red the g ov e rnmen t

t o prove tha t he kn ew of the’

re g u la t i on'

he u we s cha r ged wi th

v i ol a t i n g . The Cour t r e je c t ed th i s a r g umen t an d he ld tha t

shi ppe r s we r e pr e sumed t o kn ow the law an d the r e for e tha t

pr oof of kn owledg e of the l awwa s n ot n e ce ssa ry to e st abl i sh

a kn owi n g v i ola t ion . The Cour t foun d i t wou ld be “too mu ch

to con c lude“f r om the st a t u t e

’s leg i sla t ive hi st ory tha t

Con g r e ss i n t e nded to“ca rv le l ou t an except i on to the

g e n e r a l r u le tha t i g n or an ce of the law i s no excu se .“

a t $ 63 . The Cou r t he ld tha t whe r e “da n g e rou s or de le te r i ou s

dev i ce s or produ ct s or obn oxi ou s wa ste ma t e r i a'

ls a re

i n volved. jt he probabi l i ty of re g u lat i on i s so g r e a t tha t

a n yon e who i s swa re tha t he i s i n posse ssi on of themor

dea li n g wi th the-[ must be pr esumed to be awa r e of the

r eg u lat i on .“

_}g . a t

The pr i n c iple e n un c i a ted i n i n te rn a t i on a l u i n e r a ls

t ha t kn owledge of the l aw i s pr e sume w pr tyof reg u la t i on i s g r e a t i s we l l e st abl i shed. See g_n i ted

(Footn ot e Con t i n ued)

78

Thi s pr e sumpt i on shou ld apply t o the sa le of n u c le a r c la ss

ma t e r i a ls . . A pe r son supplyi n g ma t e r i a l s tha t he kn ows a r e

t o be u sed i n a n u c lea r powe r pla n t r e a son ably ca n be

expe ct ed to kn ow tha t the se ma t e r i a ls a r e subje ct to r eg u

l a t i on . No pe r son r a t i on a l ly c a n c l a im i g n or an ce of the

f a c t t ha t t he con st r u ct i on a n d ope r a t i on of n u c le a r powe r

pl a n t s i s he av i ly r e g u l a t ed . Mor e ov e r . i f a suppl i e r su ch

a s Tube-l i n e kn ows tha t ma t e r i a ls su ppl i ed for n u c le a r

con st r u c t i on mu st be n u c le a r c la ss or ce r t i f i ed to 1 0 C. r.h .

P a r t 21 . i t i s n ot r e a son able to a l low tha t pe r son t o e sc ape

l i ab i l i ty by c la imi n g tha t he wa s u n awa r e of the spec i f i c

de t a i ls of those r equ i r eme n t s . Su ch a r e su lt wou ld e n c ou r

a g e i g n or a n ce a n d de t e r f i rms se l l i n g n u c le a r c la ss

ma t e r i a l s f r om le a r n i n g t he r eg u l a t i on s g ove rn i n g the i r

a c t i v i t i e s .

(f oot n ot e Con t i n u ed)

St a t e s v . ~r r e ed. 4 0 1 U. S . 60 1 (1 97 1 ) (posse ssi on ofu n r e g i st e red

-53n d g ren ade s i n v i ola t i on of the ame n ded

Na t i on a l f i r e a rms A ct ) : Un i t ed St a t e s v . Dot t e rwe i ch . 320

U. S . 277 (1 94 3 ) (shi ppi n g EI FB r an ded an d adu lt e r a tzd dru g si n v i ola t i on of the f ede r a l rood . Dru g . and Cosme t i c Act ) ;Un i t ed St a t e s v . Au i si . 4 60 P . 2d 1 5 3 (2d Ci r . 1 972 ) (de a l i n gn r e a rms wi thou t a l i ce n se i n v i ol a t i on of the Gu n

Con t r ol Ac t of

l si f kn owledg e of the lawwe r e r equ i r ed. the most

prude n t cou r se of a c t i on for a n a t tor n ey for a r e spon si ble

of f i c e r or di r e c tor of a corpor a t i on sub je c t to se ct i on 206

wou ld be to ma ke su r e hi s c l i e n t di d n ot kn ow the'

r e qu i r eme n t s of se c t i on 206 . i t i s u n r e a son able t o

i n t e rpr e t a st a t u t e so t ha t the e n for c eme n t provi si on(Foo t n ot e Con t i n u ed)

82

Thu s . the r e i s con side r able a u t hor i ty suppor t i n g t he i n t e r

pr ot a t i on of“kn owi n g ly

“so a s n ot to r equ i r e kn owledg e of

t he l aw. The c a se s hold tha t whe r e the r e i s a hi g h prob

abi l i ty of r e g u la t i on . whi ch the r e i s i n the con st r u c t i on

a n d ope r a t i on of n u c le a r powe r pl a n t s . kn owledg e of the l aw

i s pr e sumed . i t the r e for e doe s n ot n eed t o be proved i n

orde r t o e st abl i sh a vi ola t i on of sec t i on 206 . f u r the rmor e .

t he le g i sl a t i ve hi story of t ha t st a t u t e i n di ca t e s tha t

Con g r e ss di d n ot i n t e n d for i g n or a n c e of the law to be a n

excu se for a v i ola t i on of se c t i on 206 . Unde r t he se c i r cum

st a n ce s .“kn owi n g ly a n d con sc i ou sly

“a s u sed i n sect i on 206

shou ld be i n t e rpr e t ed t o r equ i r e kn owledg e of the fsc t s t o

be r epor t ed r a the r tha n of the r epor t i n g r equ i r eme n t .

The r e i s n o u n fa i r n e ss i n th i s r e su l t . i f a pe r son i s doi n g

bu si n e ss by se l l i n g n u c le a r c la ss ma t e r i a ls . i t i s

(f oot n ot e'

Con t i n u ed)

Cou r t he ld tha t kn owledg e of the l awwa s r e i r ed i n or de rt o impose upon a pe r son pr ev i ou sly con v i ct of a fe lon ycr imi n a l pe n a l t i e s for f a i l i n g to r eg i st e r wi thi n f i ve days

of e n t e r i ngthe Ci ty of L os An g e le s .

“flhe r e a pe r son di dn ot kn ow o the du ty t o r eg i ste r a n d whe r e the r e wa s n o

proof of the probabi l i ty of su ch kn owledge . he may n ot be

con vi ct ed con si st e n t ly wi th due pr oc e ss .

“i d. a t 229-30 .

Thi s c a se i s di st i n gu i shable from i n t er n a t i on a l Mi n e r a l s byt he la ck of pr obabi l i ty of r eg u la t ion . A lthou g h a pe r son

ma y n ot r e a son ably be expe c t ed to k n ow of a r eg i st r a t i on

r equ i r eme n t u pon e n t e r i n g a c i ty . a pe r son c a n r e a son ab ly be

e xpe c t ed t o a n t i c i pa t e t ha t the t r a n spor t a t i on of ha za rdou s

ma t e r i a l s or sa le of n u c le a r c l a ss ma t e r i a l s wi l l ber e g u l a t ed .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

84

Have any e n forcemen t act ion s not been t aken becau sethe NRC bel ieved i t could not establ i sh the r equ i si temen tal eleme n t under i ts i n ter pr etat ion of thi s

statute?

Ther e have been a n umbe r of cases whe re the NRC has n ot imposed a c ivi lsanct ion because we could not prove that the di rector or respon si ble off i cer

had what we have i n ter pr eted to be the requ i si tekn owledg e under sect ion 206 .

However , because of var i ous factor s r elated to the cases, the NRC does n ot

have data that would permi t us to determi ne howmany cases mi ght have r esulted

i n c ivi l pen alt i es had there been no requ i si te men tal eleme n t . For example ,

some of the cases i nvest i g ated by the NRC that i nvolved possi ble sect ion 206

violat ion s also i nvolved potent i al violat ion s of var ious cr imi n al statutes

per t a i n i n g to fr aud, and they were , therefor e , refer red to the Depa r tmen t of

Just i ce for possi ble prosecut ion . A n umber of these refer red cases resulted

i n prosecut ion and convi ct ion of the per petr ator s on the basi s of viol at ion sof g en er al cr imi n al st atutes. Hhe re that was so, the NRC did n ot pur sue the

matter further , and there was no f i n al an alysi s of the possi b i l i ty of NRC

en forcemen t act ion .

Neve r theless , based on a revi ew of our f i les for the last sever al year s , we

have ide n t i f i ed a n umbe r of cases i n whi ch we re fr a i n ed from proposi n g a c i vml

pe n a lty ba sed on the j udgmen t that we could not prove the r e qu i si te men ta leleme n t . As the followi n g descr i pt ion s i llustr ate , we have g en er ally not been

85

able to impose a c ivi l pen alty under sect ion 206 i n these cases because wecould n ot prove that an i ndividu al di rector or r espon si ble off i cer of the

company had knowledg e of the defect . Thus, we have n ever r eached the quest ionwhether a respon si ble off icer of the company knew of the sect ion 206 repor t i n g

requ i remen t .

I n two cases, a vendor to a reactor l i cen see suppl ied par ts

(recondi t ioned c i rcu i t breakers) that we re not proper ly qu al i f ied.

Though i t was wide ly kn own wi thi n the i ndustry that the vendor ’s

suppl i er s (who we re later prosecuted by the Departme n t of Just ice )sold non comply i ng part s, i t was not possi ble to obta i n i n format i onto subst an t i ate that any off icer of the vendor f i rmkn ow of the

n on compl i an ce .

I n a case i nvolvi ng fa lse cert i f ied mater i al test reports for

mater i als used i n a n uclear powe r plan t , a responsi ble off icer of

the company kn ewthat false reports violated NRC rules, but we

we re un able to prove that he kn ew the company was supply i ngsubstandard mater i als . A not i ce of violat ion was i ssued (sever i tylevel I I ) , but n o c ivi l pen alty was assessed. Sever al other cases

i nvolvi n g supply of defect ive equ i pmen t by vendors have ar i sen

whe re the vendor company was aware of NRC r ules reg ardi n g

equ i pmen t , but we were not able to est abl i sh that any i ndividua l

di rector or respon si ble off icer of the company kn ew of the de fect .

I n a case i nvolvi n g fa i lure to report defects i n t ime rs i n st alled

on telether apy un i ts used for medical t reatme n t , company

86

procedur e s addressi n g product defects made no provi si on for

i n formi n g a di rector or respon si ble of f i ce r of the de fects as

requ i r ed by 10 C. P . R. P ar t 21 . A not ice of violat ion (seve r i tylevel I I I ) was i ssued, but no c ivi l pen alty was assessed because

the fa i lure to n ot i fy did '

not appea r to have been the result of a

knowi ng and con sc ious act by a di r ector or r espon si ble off i c i al”

of the company . I n seve r al other case s , i nvest i g at ion di sclosedthat a vendor f i rmdid n ot know there was a de fect because the

f i rm e i ther did not have a prog r am i n place to determi n e i f ther e

was a subst an t i al sa fety hazard, or the f i rm’s prog r amwas

i n adequate evaluat ion s were de f ic i en t ) . There be i ng n o

kn owledg e of the defect , there was no c ivi l pen alty assessed.

However , a n ot i ce of violat ion was i ssued i n many of these cases .

I n a c ase i nvolvi n g fa i lur e to not i fy the NRC of a de fect i n

repa i r ki ts suppl i ed for scr am solen oid p i lot valves at a n uclea r

power plan t , the company had a n i n cor rect under standi ng of what i s

a"defect .

”Even thoug h a r espon si ble off i cer of the company had

obt a i n ed i n format ion r eason ably i ndi cat i n g a defect exi sted, he

did not r epor t the defect to the Commi ssion . I t appe ars from a

br i ef revi ew of the case that n o c ivi l pen a lty act ion was taken

because of the company ’ s i n adequate evaluat ion and unde r st andi ng

of what con st i tutes a defect , r athe r than a ny lack of knowledg e of

the leg al obl i g at ion to r epor t a de fect . A n ot i ce of v iolat ion

(sever i ty level I I I ) wa s i ssued.

87

Have any en forcemen t act ion s not been taken becausethe NRC be l ieved i t could not establ i sh the requ i si tel ental elemen t under i ts i n ter pretat ion of this

statute?

There have be en a n umbe r of cases where the NRC has not imposed a civi lsanct ion because we cou ld not prove that the di rector or respon si ble off ice r

had what we have in terpreted to be the re qu isi te knowledge under sect ion 206 .

However , because of var ious factors related to the cases , the NRC does n ot

have dat a thatwould permi t us to determi ne howmany cases might have resulted

i n c ivi l pen a lt i es had there been no requ i si te men tal eleme n t . For example ,

some of the cases i nvest i gated by the NRC that i nvolved possi ble sect ion 206

violat ion s also i nvolved poten t i al violat ion s of var ious cr imi n al statutes

perta i n i ng to fr aud, and they were , therefore , referred to the De partmen t of

Just ice for possible prosecut ion . A n umber of these referred cases resulted

i n prosecut ion and convi ct ion of the pe r petrators on the basi s of violat ion sof gener al cr imi n al statutes . where that was so, the NRC did not pursue the

matter fur ther , and there was no f i n al an alysis of the possi b i l ity of NRC

en forcement act ion .

Never theless, based on a revi ewof our f i les for the last sever al years , we

have iden t i f ied a n umbe r of cases i n which we refrai n ed from proposi n g a c ivi l

pen a lty based on the j udgmen t that we could n ot prove the requ i si te me n ta lelemen t . As the followi ng descr i pt ion s i llustr ate , we have g enerally not bee n

able to impose a c ivi l pen a lty u nder sect ion 206 i n these cases because we

could n ot prove that an i ndividual di rector or r espon si ble off icer of the

comp any had knowledg e of the defect . Thus, we have n eve r reached the quest ionwhether a respon si ble off i cer of the company kn ewof the sect ion 206 report i ng

requ i reme n t .

I n two cases, a vendor to a reactor l i cen see suppl i ed parts

(recondi t ioned c i rcu i t breaker s) that were not proper ly qua l i f i ed.

Though i t was widely known wi thi n the i ndust ry that the vendor ’s

suppl i ers (who were later prosecuted by the De partmen t of Just i ce )sold non comply i ng par ts, i t was not possi ble to obta i n i n format ionto substan t i ate that any off i cer of the vendor f i rmknowof the

non compl i an ce .

I n a case i nvolvi n g false cert i f i ed mate r ial test r e por ts for

mater i als used i n a n uclear power plan t , a respon si ble off icer of

the compa ny kn ew that false reports violated NRC rules , but we

were un able to prove that he kn ewthe company was supply i ngsubst andard mate r i a ls . A not i ce of viol at ion was i ssued (sever i tylevel I I ) , but n o c ivi l pen alty was assessed. Several othe r cases

i nvolvi ng supply of de fect ive equ i pme n t by vendors have ar i sen

wher e the vendor company was aware of NRC r ules reg ardi ng

equ i pme n t , but we were not able to establ i sh that any i ndividualdi rector or re spon si ble off i cer of the compa ny kn ew of the de fect .

I n a case i nvolvi n g fa i lu re to r epor t de fects i n t imer s i n st alled

on telether apy u n i ts u sed for medic al t reatme n t , compa ny

procedures addre ssi ng product de fects made no provi sion fori n forming a di rector or respon si ble off ice r of the de fects as

requ i red by 10 C. P .R. P ar t 21 . A not ice of violat ion (sever itylevel I I I ) was i ssued, bu t no c ivi l pen alty was assessed becausethe fa i lure to not i fy did '

not appear to have been the result of

knowing and con sc ious act by a di rector or respon si ble off ic i al“

of the company . I n several other cases, invest ig at ion di sclosed

that a vendor f i rmdid not know the re was a defect because thef i rme i ther did n ot have a prog r am i n place to determi n e i f there

was a substan t i al safety hazard, or the f i rm’s prog r amwas

i n adequate evaluat ion s were def ic i en t ) . There be ing no

kn owledge of the defect , there was no c ivi l pen alty assessed.

However , a not i ce of violat ion was issued i n many of these cases .

I n a case i nvolvi n g fa i lure to not i fy the NRC of a defect i n

repa i r ki ts suppl ied for scr amsolenoid p i lot valves at a n uclear

power plan t , the company had an incorrect understanding of what is

a'defect .

‘

Even though a responsi ble off icer of the company hadobta i n ed i n format ion reason ably i ndi cat i ng a defect existed, he

did not report the defect tothe Commi ssion . I t appears from a

br i ef revi ewof the case that no civi l pen alty act ion was taken

because of the company ’ s i n adequate evaluat ion and understandi ng

of what con st i tutes a defect , rather than any lack of knowledge of

the leg a l obl ig at ion to report a defect . A not ice of violat ion

(sever i ty level I I I ) was i ssued.

90

QQfiST IQN 4 (g ) , On Apr i l 2 , 1993 , the New York Time s r eported that the NRC

st a ff had ide nt i f i ed 15 n uclea r powe r plan ts whose r eactor

vessels wi ll n eed exten sive an a lysi s to determi n e the exten t

to whi ch the metal i n these vessels wi ll per form as

i n te nded.

P lease descr i be the problemwi th these reactor vessels .

The con ce r n reg ardi n g these r e actor vesse ls i s embr i tt lemen t of the i r mate r i al

result i n g i n a decre ase i n upper -shelf en ergy from n eutron i r r adi at ion .

Sect i on I V. A . l of Appendix G, 10 CFR P ar t 50 , re qu i r es l icen sees to ma i n ta i nu pper -shelf en ergy throughout the l i fe of the vessel of no less than 50 ft-lb

u n lessi t i s demon st r ated i n a man ner approved by the Di rector , Off i ce of

Nuc lea r Reactor Reg ulat ion , that lower values of uppe r -shelf en ergy wi llprovide marg i n s of safety ag a i n st fr acture equ ivalen t to those r equ i r ed byAppendix G of the ASME Codet The 50 ft-lb cr i ter ion i s a con servat ivescr ee n i n g cr i ter ion . Thi s cr i ter ion was establ i shed so that vessels wi thupper -shelf en erg i es below 50 ft-lb would still have vessel i nteg r i ty wi thmarg i n . The NRC st aff iden t i f i ed 15 n uclea r power plan ts that curren tly donot meet the 50 ft -lb cr i ter ion based on NRC staff gu idan ce . The NRC staff

’

s

g u idan ce i s based upon con servat ive g e n e r i c dat a . The l i cen see s for e a ch of

the se pl an ts r epor ted to the NRC that , based on plan t -spec i f ic data and

eva lu at i on s , the i r r e actor vessels cur r en tly sat i sfy the 50 ft -lb mi n imumuppe r -she l f e n e rgy cr i ter ion . These plan t -spec i f i c an alyse s are cur r e n t lyunde r st a ff r ev i ew. The re a re three addi t ion al plan ts wi th reactor vessel

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

92

Howmuch faster ar e these r eactor vessels weaken i n gthan was or i g i n ally projected?

I t i s di ff i cult to quan t i fy howmuch faster the upper -shelf en ergy i s dropp i ngtha n or i g i n ally projected for these r e actor vessels . These 15 plan ts wer e

l i ce n sed dur i n g a pe r iod of t ime when the effect of i r r adi at ion on upper -shel f

e n ergy wa s not well unde rstood. Si nce the e ffect of i rr adi at ion on uppe r

shelf e n ergy was not wel l unde r stood, the NRC e st a bl i shed a con se rvat ivescr een i n g cr i ter ion , a nd surve i ll an ce prog rams we re i n i t i ated to ascert a i n

that vesse ls wi th uppe r -she lf en e rg i es below 50 ft -lb would have vesseli n teg r i ty wi th marg i n s at a l ater date . B ased on data from the reactor vesselsurve i llan ce prog r ams that were establ ishedwhen these plan ts were l i cen sed,

the effect of n eutron i r radi at ion i s better understood today than i t was at

the t ime the se re actor vessels were or i g i n ally l i cen sed. These surve i llan cedata we r e used to develop the staff

’s g en er ic cr i ter i a .

93

wi ll these r e actors be a ble to ope r ate for the fu ll

term of the i r oper at i ng l icen se ?

ANSWER.

B ased on the i ndustry and staff an alyses per formed, we be l i eve that the

l icen sees wi ll be able to sat i sfy Sect ion I V. A . 1 i n Appendix G for the full

te rm of the i r oper at i n g l i cen sees a nd uppe r -shelf en ergy wi l l n ot l imi t

O per at ion of these reactor s for the full t ermof the i r oper at i n g l i cen ses .

The sta ff i s cu r r en tly r evi ewi n g i ndustry an a lyses to ver i fy tha t all

l i cen sees wi ll sat i sfy the requ i red marg i n s at e nd of l i cen se . Thi s revi ewwi ll be completed by December 3 1 , 1993 .

QUESTI QN Wi ll these r eactor s be able to obta i n l i ce n se ext e n sion s

wi thout costly studies or replaceme n t of import a n t

component s?

L i ce n sees that ca n sat i sfy the uppe r -shelf e n e rgy r equ i r emen ts of Appendix G,

10 CPR P ar t 50 wi ll be able to obt a i n l i cen se exten sion s wi thout cost lystudi e s or r e placemen t of the r eactor vessel , provided they c an mee t othe r

reg ulatory requ i remen ts .

94

Nucle a r P lan t Decommi ssi on i n g

Hhat i s the st atus of MRC’s enhan ced p art ic i patory

r ulemaki n g on decon tami n at ion and decommi ssion i n g st andards?

P ubl i cat ion of the proposed r ule i s scheduled for Jun e 1994 , and the f i n al

r u le i s expected to follow i n Jun e 1995 . The staff obta i n ed enhan ced

par t i c i p at ion i n this r ulemaki n g from a broad spect rumof st akeholde rs ,

i n cludi n g st ate , tr i ba l and local gove rnme n ts, c i t izen g roups , envi ronmen t ali n te rests , a nd i ndust ry r e p resen ta t ives . Thi s was accomp l i shed by sol ic i t i n g

commen t a nd vi ewpoi n ts through seven workshops and e ight separ ate Gen er i c

En i vi ronmen tal Impact Stateme n t (GEIS) scop i ng meet i ng s held across the

coun t ry fromJan uary through July 1993 . The commen ts and vi ewpoi n ts rece ivedare cur ren tly be i ng eva luated by the staff i n i ts developme n t of the dr aft

decon t ami n at ion and decommi ssion i ng standards . The staff wi ll obta i n an earlysol ic i tat ion of commen t by Ag reemen t States, workshop part ic i pan ts and other

i n terested g rou ps on the st aff’s dr aft of the proposed ru le . Respon ses to

thi s round of commen ts wi ll be considered before the dr aft proposed ru le is

sen t to the Commi ssion .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

(con t i n ued)

workshops . EPA i s also a cooper at i ng agency i n the developmen t of the Gener i c

Envi ronmen tal Impact Stateme n t (GEI S) i n support of NRC’s rulemaki n g . EP A

part icipated i n the f i rst two of e i ght publ ic meet ings held by NRC i n July1993 , on the scope of the GEI S.

NRC and EPA are also cooper at i ng through the I n ter agen cy Steer i n g Committee on

Residual Radioact ivi ty . Thi s Commi ttee was created at the request of the

Off i ce of Man ageme n t and B udget i n January 1993 . Under the aeg is of the

Stee r i n g Commi ttee , NRC and EPA staffs have been meet i ng frequen tly , alon g

wi th represen tat ives of the De partme n t of Energy and De partmen t of Defen se , to

exchange and evaluate i n forma t ion on the technolog y , dose model i ng , and costs

assoc i ated wi th remedi at i n g r adiolog ically con tami n ated si tes .

EPA has not voi ced any object ions to MRC’

s approach i n the EPR. I n fact , EPA

has en cour aged the open process to collect the views of a diverse g roup ofi n terested part ies ear ly i n the rulemaki ng process . He underst and that EP A i s

plan n i n g to con t i n ue thi s di alog ue through othe r mechan i sms in support of i ts

r ulemaki n g to establ i sh r adi at ion clean up standards . EPA has supported MRC’

s

r ulemaki n g effort to date through part i c i pat i ng i n the publ ic meet i ng s and

workshops, revi ewi n g dr aft techn i cal and reg ulatory an alyses i n suppor t of the

r ulemaki n g , and evaluat i n g the commen ts obta i ned through the rulemaki n g

wor kshops .

97

QQE§T I QN 5 (Q ) , Does NRC have re l i a ble e st imates of the eve n tual cost s of

decommi ssion i n g for n ucle ar power plan t s?

The NRC est abl i shed mi n imum f i nan c i al a ssur an ce amoun ts for decommi ssion i n g of

powe r r eactor s on a g e n er i c basi s i n 1988 when i t i ssued the decommi ssion i n greg ul at ion s i n 10 CPR These mi n imumvalues we re i n 1986 doll ar s a nd

a r e requ i red to be updated an n ually by l i cen sees to re flect actual i n cre ases

i n the cost s of l abor , en ergy , and low-level r adioact ive wa stedi sposal .

These cost est imates do n ot i n clude costs for r emoval of n on -r adioact iveequ i pmen t and str uctures (often called

”g r een f i eld restor at ion

"

) or the costs

for stor age of spen t fuel si nce these costs ar e not con side red to be

decommi ssion i n g costs unde r cur ren t NRC reg ulat ion s .

Cer ta i n reported decommi ssion i n g cost e st imates made by l i ce n sees havedi ffered si g n i f i can tly fromthe mi n imumcost values publ i shed by the NRC i n10 CER Howeve r , i n n e ar ly all cases no subst an t i a l un expl a i n ed cost

di f fe r en ce s r ema i n ed after care ful cost compa r i son s we re made to en sur e that

(l) the est imates wer e pr epared usi ng the same year dollar s , (2) compa r ablea ssumpt i on s wer e used for waste bur i a l costs , and (3 ) g r een f i eld and spen t

fuel stor ag e costs we re not i n cluded.

The NRC i s n ow i n the process of reevalu at i n g the or i g i n a l decommi ssi on i n g

cost est imates upon whi ch these mi n imumvalues were based to r eflect the

98

(Con t i n ued)

condit ion s that decommi ssion i n g plan ts cur ren tly face . The most si g n i f i can t

con t r i butors to chan g i n g est imates are the (1 ) r ap id escalat ion of low-levelwaste di sposal costs , (2) the assumpt ion s of the amoun t of low-level waste

g en er ated, and (3) the un cert a i n ty that l icen sees face wi th respect to

ava i lab i l i ty of off-si te di sposal capac i ty of spen t fuel . The new studies

wi ll take i n to accoun t knowledge obta i ned fromdecommi ssion i n g of oper at i ng

re actor fac i l i t i es, i n cludi ng fac i l i t i es such as Shi pp i n g por t , although we

st i ll have l i ttle actual cost dat a on decommi ssion i ng of larg er fac i l i t i es .

The NRC an alyses of updated decommission i n g costs for pressu r ized wate r

re actor s and boi l i n g water reactors wi ll be publ i shed for publ i c comme n t bySeptember 1993 and Ma rch 1994 , respect ively . The NRC i s also evaluat i ng thefe asi b i l i ty of i ncludi n g spen t fuel costs and

"

g reen f ield restorat ion'

costs

i n i ts est imates .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

100

Nhat wi ll be don e wi th the spen t n ucl ea r fue l at

decommi ssion ed si tes pr ior to the ope r at ion of a pe rmane n t

r eposi tory for spen t n uclear fuel? For example , wha t wi ll

be don e wi th the spen t n ucle ar fuel a t the Yankee Rowe

n ucle ar plan t? Does the NRC have reason able assu r an ce that

the stor age of spen t fuel at the si tes wi th decommi ssion ed

re actors wi ll pose n o undue r isk to the publ ic health and

sa fety?

Un t i l i t i s ult imately t ransfer red to the Departmen t of En ergy for stor age ,

spen t fuel at decommi ssion i n g reactors may be ( I ) ke pt i n the exi st i n g spen t

fue l pool , (2) tr an sfer r ed to an Independen t Spen t Fue l Stor ag e In st a ll at ion( I SFSI ) , or (3 ) tr an sfer red to another l i cen sed reactor fac i l i ty for use

and/or stor ag e .

The l i cen see of the Yankee Rowe fac i l ity plans to keep i ts spen t fuel i n the

exi st i n g spen t fuel pool un t i l the l ate 1990’

s when i t wi ll then be

tr an sfe rr ed to an I SFSI .

On September 18 , 1990 , the NRC publ i shed i ts revi ew of p revious con clusion s

r eg ardi n g the ade quacy of cur ren t and future plan s for the stor ag e of hi gh

leve l r adioact ive wast e i n i ts“Revi ew and F i n al Revi sion of the Waste

Con f iden ce Dec i sion”(55 FR F i ndi n g 4 of thi s dec i sion st ates :

101

(Con t i n ued)

The Commi ssion f i nds reason able assur an ce that , i f n ecessary , spen t fue l

g ener ated i n any re actor can be stored safely and wi thout si g n i f i ca n t

envi ronme n t al impacts for at least 30 yea r s beyond the l i ce n sed l i fe forope r at ion (whi ch may i n clude the te rmof a revi sed or r en ewed l i cen se ) of that

r e actor at i ts spen t fue l stor ag e basi n , or at e i ther on si te or offsi te

i ndepe nden t spen t fuel stor ag e i n st allat ion s .

Thus , the Commi ssion bel i eves that there ar e no un r esolved sa fety or

e nvi ronme n t al con ce r n s a ssoc i ated wi th stor age of Spen t r e actor fuel .

102

What act ivi t i es does the NRC plan on doi n g i n f i scal

year s 1994 and 1995 wi th r espect to i n te r n a t ion a l

n uclear safety? Hhat type of act ivi t i es wi ll the NRCbe undertaki n g to improve the sa fety of r eactors

design ed i n the forme r Soviet Un ion? I n an swer i ng

thi s quest ion , please provide dollar amoun ts as well

as a descr i pt ion of these act ivi t i es .

The NRC wi ll con t i n ue i ts efforts to promote i n tern at ion al n uclear safetydur i n g FY 1994 and 1995 . These act ivi t i es i n clude techn ical i n format ionexchanges wi th fore i g n coun tr ies on regu latory/safety matters, tr a i n i ng of

fore ig n reg ulatory off i c i als i n n uclear safety , collaborat ive i n te rn at ion aln uclear safety r ese ar ch, export/ import l i cen si ng revi ews (i n cludi n gi n ter n at ion al safeg uards/physical secur i ty revi ews) , and non prol i fer at ion

e ffor ts . For FY 94 NRC has earmarked approximately $11 mi ll ion of i ts

resources to support these act ivi t ies . Thi s i n cludes the prog ram support ,

tr avel , salar ies , and benef i ts assoc i ated wi th the approximately 60 FTE’s NRC

wi ll expend on these e fforts . A simi lar level of effort i s an t ic i pated for

FY 95 .

NRC’

s over all i n tern at ion a l act ivi t ies i nclude effor ts to improve the safetyof reactors desig ned in the former Soviet Un ion . These act ivi t ies focus on

Russi a and Ukr a i n e , si n ce thi s i s where the major i ty of Sovie t-desi g n edr eactors are located, and i n the coun tr ies of Cen t r a l and Ea ste rn Europe .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

104

(con t i nued)

assi stan ce from F Y 93 funds to support these act ivi t ies . I n addi t ion , NRC

expects to request addi t ion al funds fromA ID to support act ivi t ies i n thisarea .

Has any of the assi stance provided by NRC to date beene ffect ive i n improvi n g the safety of re actor s de si g n ed

i n the forme r Soviet Un ion? P lease expla i n .

Dur i n g the past seven years exten sive efforts have been devoted by the NRC ton uclear safety coope r at ion wi th, and assi stance to, the forme r Soviet Un ion

(FSU) . The NRC be l i eves that i ts act ivi t ies haVe resulted i n a n umbe r of

sig n i f i can t accompl i shmen ts .

I n gen er al , NRC e fforts have been i n three phases: 1 ) the e ar ly postChe rn obyl phase (1986 2) developmen t of cooper at ive act ivi t i es unde r

the Joi n t Coordi n at i n g Commi ttee on Civi l i an Nuclear Reactor Safety , or

Jcccuns (1988 -presen t ) , and 3 ) techn ical assist an ce (May 1992 un t i l the

pr esen t ) .

P rel imi n a ry i n terchan g e di rect ed at under standi n g Soviet n uclear reactor

desig n and oper at ion char acter ized the f i rst phase , i n whi ch the U. S. and

other coun tr i es tr i ed to determi ne the causes and consequences of the

Cher n obyl n uclear acc iden t of Apr i l 26 , 1986 . The major accompl i shmen t of

thi s stage was to g a i n the Soviets ’tr ust and to show them that the Nest had

much to p rovide a bout n uclear safety .

The second, mor e substan t ive phase be g an with the si g n i n g of a U. S.-USSR

Memor andumof Coope r at ion on Nucle ar Sa fety , on the second an n iver sary of the

Che r n oby l acc iden t , Apr i l 26 , 1988 . In te r act ion s took the form of ten (late r

105

M M (con t i n ued)

to g row to twelve ) worki n g g roups on techn ical a spects of c ivi l i a n n uclea r

power reactor safety (see Appendix These exchan g es we re of va lue to the

NRC and to the nuclear establ i shmen t of the forme r Sovi et Un ion , bothreg ulators and n uclear power plan n ers . Some of the be n ef i t s of the se

exchan g es are

I n format ion Exchan g e Throug h 1992 , about 50 t echn i ca l me et i n g s i n the

FSU and the U. S . led to a deepe r under standi n g by the FSU of the

techn i cal , leg al and org an izat ion al a pproaches to sa fety employed i n the

Nest and had a posi t ive i n fluence on Russi an a nd Ukr a i n i a n safetyculture , maki n g them better able to help themselves improve safety .

I n spector Exchan g es: An un preceden ted ser i es of exchan g e s of i n spect ion

pe r son n el for extended pe r iods at n uclear fac i l i t i es has ben e f i ttedr eg ul atory author i t ies i n the USSR; broaden ed U. S. under standi n g of the

Sovi et r eg ulatory i n fr astructure , and led to efforts to change some

Sovi et pol i c i es and pr act i ces .

Sever e acc iden t r esearch . The Russi an Kurchatov In st i tute i s worki n g

wi th NRC usi n g Russi an fac i l i t i es whose techn i cal equ iva le n t are not

ava i lable i n the U. S. and i s con tr i but i ng to the NRC mi ssion . As a

si g n i f ican t mi leston e i n thi s work, Kurchatov’

s safety resea r ch di rector

spen t sever al mon ths at NRC i n 1990 to le ar n how sa fety r esearch i s don e

i n the U. S. so thi s knowledg e could be a ppl i ed i n Russi a .- I n addi t i on ,

the NRC provided to Kurchatov U. S. codes for an alysi s of seve r e r eactor

acc iden ts .

106

guggllgu Q (h) . (con t i n ued)

Involvemen t i n western techn ical org an izat ion s: I n exchan ge for the

acc iden t codes Russi a has become a membe r of the In tern at ion al CodeAssessme n t P rog r am, an associ at ion of Heste rn coun tr ies i n ter ested i n

simulat i n g reactor acc idents .

Russi an an n eal i n g technology : Through the excha n g es the U. S. has

lear n ed much a bout Russi an an n eal i n g technology . For example , NRC

learn ed that the Soviets had an nealed (heat-t reated) reactor pressure

vessels that had become embr i ttled by r adi at ion and they had obta i n edalmost comp lete duct i le recovery . Because of simi lar problems of

embr i tt leme n t be i n g en countered i n U. S. reactors , the NRC i s i n terested

i n thi s technology , and some ut i l i t ies wi th older plan ts are also

i nvest i g at i n g i ts promise .

The U. S. has also learn ed about unsat i sfactory condi t ion s i n n uclear power

stat ion s i n the forme r Soviet Un ion and weaknesses i n n uclear safetyreg ul at ion there . When the Soviet Un ion di ssolved i n 1991 , the NRC wasi n st rumen tal i n U. S. efforts to assi st i n n uclear reactor safety andr eg ulatory improvemen ts in Russi a and Ukra i ne . The prog rams of assi stan ce

that we re developed drewexten sively on previous years’cooperat ive

act ivi t ies .

The L i sbon In i t i at ive beg an the thi rd phase of U. S. n uclear safety cooper at ionwi th the forme r Sovie t Un ion . Thi s phase emphasized di rect assi stan ce and

bu i ldi n g upon the prog r amof techn ical cooper at ion .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

108

Howmuch of a threat do Sovi et-desi g n ed re actor s

con t i n ue to pose?

Nhat types of addi t ion al e ffor ts a re n ecessary toimprove the safety of these reactors?

wester n exper ts ag r ee that prolon g ed operat ion of cer t a i n types of Sovi etdesi g n ed n uclea r power r eactors, i n par t icular the RBMK and VVER

poses an un acceptably hi gh r i sk to the publ ic health and safety , and tha t

oper at ion of these types of fac i l i t i es should be di scon t i n ued as qu i ckly as

possi ble . US assi stan ce efforts for these fac i l i t i es under the L i sbonIn i t i at ive have focused on iden t i fy i ng short term r i sk r educt ion act ion s that

can reduce the l i kel i hood of the i r havi n g a ser ious i n c iden t . The si g n if i can t

de f i c i en c i es assoc i ated wi th these types of r e actors ( i n cludi n g lack of

eme rg en cy cor e cool i n g systems, l ack of a con ta i nmen t str uctur e , lack of

separ at ion and redundan cy of equ i pme n t , faci l i ty mater i al condi t ion or

“

housekeep i n g , " and oper at ion al complexi ty ) makes the i r lon g term upg r adi n g to

an acceptable level of safety imp r act i cal .

wester n experts also ag ree that certa i n types of Sovi et -desi g n ed n ucle a r power

reactors, i n part i cular the VVER and VVER 1000 , can be e ffect ivelyupg r aded to an acceptable level of safety . For example , the Lovi i sa fac i l i tyi n F i n land ut i l izes two VVER reactors that have been upg r aded to meet

wester n sa fety standards . The 6-7 members have ag reed that the oper ator s of

these re actor s shou ld obt a i n fundi n g for sa fety upg r ades of the se re actor s by

109

M M . (Con t i n ued)

ava i l able comme rci al

‘

means (such as through i n fusion s of pr ivate cap i t al or

i n ter n at ion al f i n an c i al i n st i tut ion al help ) .

Nhat i s the most effect ive use of the l imi ted funds

that are ava i la ble for fore i g n assi stance to improvethe safety of the Soviet desi g n ed reactors: Should

these l imi ted funds be used to improve the safety of

the least -safe re actors, such as the RBMK’

s? Or ,

should these funds not be used for act ivi t i es whi chmi ght prolon g the oper at ion of these un safe re actors

for example , should funds be used to developa ltern at ive sources of elect r i c i ty so that these

un safe reactors might be a ble to be shut down ? I n

other words, what should be the pr ior i t i es for our

assi stan ce i n thi s area?

I n July 1992 , at the Mun i ch Summi t , the U. S . along wi th the other 6-7

coun t r ies expressed con cern about the safety of Sovi et -desi g n ed n ucle ar power

plan ts and offered assi stance . The members called for immedi ate measures to

improve ope rat ion a l safety , to make n ear -term improveme n ts based on plan t

spec i f i c safety assessments, and to enhance reg ulatory reg imes i n order to

improve the short termoper at ion s of these plan ts to prevent another ser ious

acc iden t . He ag ree wi th thi s str ategy and are part i c i pat i n g i n impleme n t i n g

i t through the L i sbon I n i t i at ive on Nuclear Safety and the JCCCNRS wi th Russi a

and Ukr a i n e , and throug h b i later al regulatory assi stancepackag es wi th the

coun t r ies of Easter n Europe that are ope r at i ng Sovi et-desi g n ed n ucle ar powe r

plan ts .

1 10

U T 0 (Con t i n ued)

I n g e n er al , our view i s that the shor t term improvemen ts i n ope r at ion s a nd

emerg e n cy hardwa re upg r ades , alon g wi th n eeded reg ulatory r e forms , a r e the

cor r ect pr ior i t i es to preven t another ser ious acciden t i n the shor t run , and

these should be the focus of our l imi ted assistance e ffor t . Lon g er r a n g e

prog r ams of improvemen ts to newer , safer desi g n s wi ll requ i re comme rc i al (as

well as some con cession ary ) f i n an c i n g . Thi s isalso con si sten t wi th the vi ewsof the other 6 -7 members . The 1992 6-7 prog r amof act ion ca lled for

exami n at ion of the scope for replac i n g less safe plan ts by the developmen t of

alte rn at ive e ne rgy sources and the more eff i c i en t use of en e rgy . To thi s e nd,

the 6-7 commi ssion ed st udies whi ch ar e now complete, by the I n ter n at ion alEn ergy Ag e n cy , the Wor ld B ank, and the European B ank for Recon str uct ion and

Developme n t to a n alyze prospects for r eplac i n g the r eactors and/or upg r adi ng

them and the econ omic impl icat ion s . I n addi t ion , the 6-7 prog r am recog n ized

the pote n t i a l for upg r adi ng pla n ts of more recen t desi g n a nd called for

studi es to asce r ta i n what upg r ades would be n eeded.

More r ecen t ly , the 6-7 meet i n g i n Tokyo i n July 1993 , con cluded that lon g er

term i n ter n at ion al assi stance for n uclear safety n eeded to be l i nked to ther ec i p i en t ’

s over all econ omic and en e rgy si tuat ion , and asked the EBRO , the

wor ld B a n k, the I EA and the European I nvestmen t B ank to a id the r ec i p i en t

coun tr i es i n i n teg r at i n g lon g-term en ergy st rateg ies wi th n ucle ar safety

i ssues . He r ecog n ize that n uclea r safety improvemen ts must be l i n ked toe nergy sector re forms such as pr i ce l i be r al i zat ion and con se rvat ion . Si n ce

these r e forms wi ll be complex a nd costly , the 6-7 noted that the r ec i p i e n t

cou n tr i e s wi ll n eed con cession ary lendi n g i n the n ea r t e rm a nd fu t u r e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

112

Nhat i s the NRC’s vi ew of the proposal , and the

effor ts to date , to develop an i n ter n at ion alconven t ion on n uclear safety? Hhat i s the NRC

’s role

i n the developme n t of thi s conven t ion ?

An swer .

The NRC has and wi ll con t i n ue to support i n tern at ion al e fforts to achi eve an

In te r n at ion al Nuclea r Safety Conven t ion at the e ar l i est possi ble date . A

pr i n c i pal theme of thi s conven t ion would be to establ i sh a set of pr i n c i ples

for streng then i ng commerc i a l n uclear power plant safety wor ldwide .

The U. S. has part i c i pated i n six worki ng g roup meet ing s to date unde r the

aeg i s of the IAEA to di scuss and develop the possi ble elemen ts for such a

conven t ion . The focus of such a conven t ion would be i n i t i ally on n ucle ar

power plan ts , movi ng later to i ssues such as n ucle ar waste . I n addi t ion , the

Cha i rman of the conven t ion ’s worki ng g roup i s prepar i n g a dr aft of the

conven t ion whi ch wi ll be presen ted to Member States for commen t pr ior to the

n ext worki n g g roup meet i ng i n October . NRCwi ll part ic i pate i n that meet i n g

a nd wi ll con t i n ue to con tr i bute ideas for the developmen t of the Conven t ion

(such as sugg est ion s for the peer revi ew arr an geme n ts at meet i n gs of the

par t ies) .

113

The GAO recen tly re leased a re port that was cr i t ica l

of NRC’s ag reemen t state prog r am. GAO found that the

NRC had not esta bl ished any pe r forman ce i ndicators for

the ag reemen t states, and did not have enough

in format ion to adequately mon i tor the per formance of

ag reemen t states. GAO also found that the NRC had

vag ue r ather than spec i f ic cr i ter i a or p rocedur es for

suspendi ng or revoki n g an ag reeme n t state prog r am.

(a ) Nhat i s the NRC’s react ion to the 6A0

’s

recommendat ion s?

The NRC respon se to the GAO report , 'Nucle ar Reg ulat ion : Be tte r Cr i ter i a and

Data Hould Help En sure Safety of Nuclear Mater i als, " i s documen ted i n a letter

da ted July 28 , 1993 to the Honor able John Glen n , Cha i rman , Commi ttee on

Gove rnme n t al Affa i rs fromCha i rman I van Sel i n . A copy of this letter i sen closed.

En closure

As stated

1 14

ENCLOSURE M 1 10“ I n )

UNIT B O OTAfl S

NUCL EA R REGUL ATO RY COMM ISS IO Nwaamworow. b . c. aoeee

M y 29. 1 993

“ A IRMAN

The Honorable John Glen n , ChairmanCom i ttee on Governmental Affai rsUn i ted States SenateUashi n g ton . D.C. 20510

Dear Mr . Cha i rman

I n accordance wi th the statutory obl ig at ion to respond to recomendat ions bythe Gen er al Accoun t i ng Off ice (GAO) wi thi n 60 days of rece ipt , we herebysubmi t our respon ses to the recommendat ions made by the GAO in their reporten t i tled,

'NUCLEAR REGULATION: BETTER CRI TERIA ANO OATA UOULO HELP ENSURE

SAFETY OFNUCLEAR MATERIALS.

“ we ag ree with most of the recom ndat ions.

Speci fic commen ts on the GAO recommendat ions are presented in Enclosure 1 .Enclosure 2 presen ts updated i n format ion for Tables and ofthe GAO re por t . En closure 3 presen ts updated data for Table i n the GAOreport . These newdata have been discussedwi th GAO. and they agree thatthese u pdated tables presen t the i n format ion which should be usedwhen seekingto comp are the NRCmater ials prog ramand the Ag reemen t State. prog rams .

Sincerely,

I van SelinEnclosure1 . Respon se to GAO Recomnendat ions2 . Updated Data for Tables and3 . Updated Oeta for Table

cc: Sen ator MilliamY. Roth, Jr .

(Or i g i na ted by : OSollenberger . SP )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 16

GAO Report NUCLEAR REGULATI ON: Better Cr iter i a and Datawould Help En sure Safety of Nuclear Mater ials

GAO/RCEO-93-90

h u m mu s

The GAO stated that the Cha irman of the NRC should take several act ions tomodi fy the i nconsisten t way i n which the NRC evaluates the effect iveness ofi ts two mater ials prog rams in achievi ng the goal of adequately protect i ng thepubl ic f romradiat ion .

GAO r ecommendat ion : The Cha i rman , NRC, should establ ish 'consnon per formance

i ndi cators i n order to obtai n compar able i n format ion to evaluate theeffect iven ess of both the Agreemen t State and NRC reg ulated state prog r ams i nmeet i ng NRC

’s goal .

NR; ggspgn sg

Ne agr ee , and the Com ission i n tends to implement a newprog ramevaluat iona pproach beg in n i n g next year . Although di fferences exist i n the roles

'

andregulatory responsi b i l i t ies of the 29 agreement states versus the S NRCreg ion al off ices. core per formance indicators for NRC and agreemen t stateprog ramevaluat ion wi ll be helpful i n evaluat i ng the effect iveness of then at ion al n uclear mater i als prog ram. Re are curren tly consider i ng core

performan ce i ndicators that i nclude both the tradi t ion al prog ranmat ici ndicators as well as output i ndicators such as medical misadmi n istrat ions,lost or abandoned radioact ive sources, radiat ion overex osures, andcon tami n ated si tes. Ne are also consider ing graded eva ust ions of these core

performan ce i ndicators which wi ll be used i n the development of an an nuali n teg r ated mater i als safety evaluat ion . Ne wi ll use these i ndicators as a

basi s for an an n ual discussion wi th the Org an izat ion of Ag reement States,presen t the results at the NRC sen ior man a

gemen t meet i ng i n June of each year ,

and br ie f the Commission annually at a pub ic meet i ng .

GAO recomendation : The Cha i rman , NRC, should establ ish'speci fic cr i ter i a

and procedures for suspending or revoki ng an agreement-state prog ram. On ceNRC en sures the effect iveness of the NRC-regulated state prog ramusing the n ew

per formance i ndicators. i t should take aggressive act ion to suspend or revokeany ag reemen t-state progr amthat is i ncompat i ble or i n adequate wi th the

per forman ce i ndicators.

‘

ENCLOSURE I

117

Ne agree mi with regard to the need to have specific procedures forterminat ion o an agreement andwe in tend to complete such wr i tten proceduresi n 1994 . The. procedures wi ll i nclude earl Co-ission involvemen t when an

agreemen t sm prog ram ins to have troub e . Ne too are concern ed about

the delay which may occur tween the t ime we are f irst concerned about an

agreement state prog ramand the t ime that the concern is corrected. Ne willaddress that issue i n our procedures.

The GAO report points out correctly that since our cr iter ia were formal ized i na pol icy statement i n 1981 . the NRChas never formally found a state to bei nadequate to protect publ ic health and safety . Our General Statement ofPol icy states that i f no sign i f ican t Category 1 cc-ents are provided. the

prog rami s adequate to protect the pl ic health and safety . The converse .however , i s not necessar i l true . f co-ents on Cate

gory 1 indicators are

provided. this means we be ieve that the prog ramdef ic encies mighteven tually , i f allowed to cont i nue unremedied. ser iously affect the state

’s

ab i l i ty to protect the publ ic health and safety. but i t does not necessar i lymean that there is an in ediate threat to public health and safety .

for example . the status of the state’s inspection prog ramis a Category 1

i ndicator under our g u idel ines. The fact that a l icensee is overdue fori nspect ion does not necessar i ly mean that the publ ic health and safety are

compromised. The l icensee ma be cont inu ing to run an effect ive radi at ion

safety prog ram rotect i n

ghea th and safety . Overdue i nspections are .

however , a regu story de iciency that could coepromise the state’s abil i ty to

protect publ ic health and safety,in the long run . Hence . we wouldwithhold a

f i ndi ng of adequacy unt i l the state addre ssed this programnatic def iciency .

The Atomic En ergy Act makes clear that agreement state status is a long termcommi tment for the state ; nei ther we nor the states take lightly thetermin at ion of an agreement . Ne do not take an in flexible

'regulatory

'

a pproach that requires a state to do everything our way. Ne believe that thestates are commi tted to protect ing publ ic health and safety adequately andma inta i n ing reg ulatory p rams consistent with the ir commitments. I f .however , we became aware o a spec i fic situat ion in a state where the healthand safety of the publ ic was in ser ious Jeopardy and in our Judgement _

the

state was unwi ll i ng or unable to take decisive act ion , we would not hesitateto take un i lateral act ion to reassert author ity over that situation

1 123

n o recom nzia't ion : The Chai rman , NRC. should 'requi re agreemen t states to

report ebne l occurrences so that NRC can i nclude the occurrences i n i ts

quarterly re t to Congress.

’

GAO recommendat ion : The Chairman . NRC. should 'take appropr i ate act ion to

”

ensure that the i n format ion on radi at ion events i n ag reement states i sreported completely and accurately .

"

Ne ag r ee that abnormal occurren ces should be reported to the NRC for i nclusioni n the Q uar terly report to Cong ress requ i red by Sect ion 208 of the EnergyReorg an izat ion Act of 1974 . but as a pract ical matter we at what in formati onthe states have . Although Sect ion 208 does not address a norma l occurrencesi nvolvi n g ag reemen t state l icensees. NRC requested agreement state cooperat ioni n providi ng such i n format ion to Congress. Through the exchange-ofi n format ion program. to which the states accede i n each a reemen t . theag reemen t states agreed to provide us wi th a g reat deal o i n formationr egarding the i r

'

progr ams. in cludi ng in formation on events occurr ing in the irst ates. The NRC established an agreemen t state abnormal occurrence report ingsystemon July 1 . 1977 . The agreement states per iodically provide to the NRCeven ts/i ncident reports: these are evaluated by our Office for An alysis and[ valuat ion of Operat ion al Data AEOO) . i n coordinat ion wi th the Off ice ofState P rograms to iden t i y reports which may reach the threshold of an

zbnormal occurrence . if any even t reaches the threshold. NRC reports i t toong ress.

Nhile the ag reemen t states part icipate in the abnormel_occurrence report ing

prog r am based on the’

commi tmen t . discussed above . to exchange i n format ion withthe NRC. the GAO poi n ts out that

‘

some agreemen t states have not submittedabnormal occurrence reports. The GAO report also observes that the dataavai lable on the agreement state prog rams are not ident ical to those that are

'

ava i lable for the NRCmater ials prog ram. These observat ions are correct and“

we are in the process of rect ifyi ng this situation .

For the most recent report ing per iod. we advised the state reg ulators aboutthe n eed for complete event data . andwe followed up with telephone calls tothe states to remi nd them. As a result . we obtained event reports fromall 29ag reemen t states for 1992. Ne cont i nue working to increase the level ofun i formi ty between the NRC and the agreement states on report ing . in Aug ust1993 the NRC is host i ng a man agement workshop for the agreement states todiscuss event report ing . along with en forcement . alleg at ion . and i nvest i gat ioni ssues . The goal of the workshop i s to provide the ag reemen t states and NRC

part ici pan ts wi th a better understandi n of these prog ram issues. wi th thegoal of i ncreasing converg ence among al the prog rams.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

128

QQESI IQN7‘Q ) . (Con t i n ued)

Ca tegory I i ndicator s address prog r am fun ct ion s that di rectly relate to the

State’s ab i l i ty to protect the publ ic health and sa fety . I f si g n i f ican t

problems exi st i n sever al Category I i ndicator areas . then the n eed for

improveme n ts may be cr i t i cal .

Category I I i ndicators address programfunct ion s that prov ide essen t i a l

techn i cal and admi n i strat ive su pport for the pr imary prog ram fun ct ion s . These

i ndicator s a re e ssen t i a l i n order to avoid the developmen t of problems i n on e

or more of the pr i nci pal prog ramareas. i . e . . those that fall under Category Ii ndicators .

I f no sig n i f i can t Category I commen ts are provided. this i ndicates that theprog r am i s ade quate to protect the publ ic health and safety and i s compat i blewi th the MRC’

s prog r am. I f on e or more sign i f i can t Category I commen ts are

provided. the State i s not ifi ed that the prog r amdef ic ienc i es may ser iouslyaffect the State

’s ab i l i ty to protect the publ ic health and safety and that

the n eed for improveme n t i n pa rt icular prog r am areas i s cr i t i cal .

En closure

As stated

ENCL OSUREquest ion 7(b)

Nay 28 . 1992'Gu idel i nes for NRC Reviewof Ag reement State Radiat ion Con trol

P rog rams'

Category I Direct bear ing on health and Safety . Category I I ndicators

(and the Pro n Elemen ts of which they are a part ) are

leg al Author ity (leg islat ion and Reg ulat ion s)Status and Compat ibil ity of Regulat ions (Leg islat ion andReg ulat ions)Quality of Emergency P lann ing (Managemen t andAdmin istrat ion )Techn ical Qual ity of L icen sing Act ions (Licensi ng )Adequacy of P roduct Evaluat ion s (L icen si ng )Status of I nspect ion P rog ram (Compli an ce )I n spect ion frequency (Compli ance )I n spectors

' Performance and Capabil ity (Compl i ance )Response to Actual and Alleged I nc iden ts (Compl i an ce )En forcemen t P rocedures (Compl i ance)

Category I I -Essent i al Techn ical and Admin istrat ive Support . Category I II ndicators (and the Prog ramElemen ts of which they are a part) are

Locat ion of Radiat ion Con trol P rog r amNithi n StateOrg an izat ion . (Org an izat ion )I n ternal Org an izat ion of Radi at ion Con trol P rog ram.

(Org an izat ion )Leg al Assistance . (Org an izat ion )Techn ical Advisory Cu-i ttees. (Org an izat ion )Contr actual Assistance (Org an izat ion )Budget . (Man agemen t and Admin istrat ion )Laboratory Support . (Nanagement and Admin istrat ion )Admin istrat ive P rocedures. (Nanegement and Admin istrat ion )Nanagement . (Nan agement and Admin istrat ion )Off ice Equ ipment and Support Services. (Nan agement andAdmin istrat ion )Public I n format ion . (Nan agement and Admi n istr at ion )Qual i f icat ions of Techn ical Staff . (Personnel )Staff ing Level . (Personnel)Staff Supervision . (Person nel )Tra in ing . (Personnel )Staff Cont inuity . (Personnel)Licensing Procedures (L icensing )I nspect ion P rocedures (Compl i ance)I nspect ion Reports (Compl iance )Con firmatory Neasuremen ts (Compl i an ce)

130

The GAO recen tly released a r eport that was cr i t i cal of

MRC’s ag r eeme n t state prog ram. GAO found that the NRC had

not establ i shed any performan ce i ndi cator s for the ag r eement

states. and did not have enough i n format ion to adequatelymon i tor a

the performan ce of ag reemen t states. GAO also found

that the NRC had vague rather than spec i f i c cr i ter i a or

procedures for suspendi ng or revoki n g an ag reemen t state

prog r am.

(c ) Nhat type of author i ty does the NRC have to mon i torthe ag reemen t state prog r ams? Does the NRC make use

of thi s author i ty? To what exten t should the NRC

mon i tor ag reeme n t st ates? Does the NRC n eed‘

addi t ion al author i ty toeffect ively mon i tor the ’

ag reeme n t states .

The NRC has author i ty under Sect ions I 61 (c ) and 274i of the Atomic En ergy Act .as ame nded. to mon i tor the Ag reement St ate prog r ams . Sect ion 274 i . (I )provides the followi n g

The Commi ssion shall per iodi ca lly revi ew such ag reemen ts a nd

act i on s taken by the States under the ag reeme n ts to i n sure compl i an ce

wi th the provi sion s of thi s sect ion .

"

The NRC makes use of thi s author i ty by conduct i n g rout i n e revi ews a nd vi si tsto Ag r e eme n t Sta te s a s di scussed i n the respon se to 7 (b) .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Seve r al n ucle ar power plan ts have dec ided todecommi ssion be fore the exp i rat ion of the i r

l icen ses.

(a ) Does the NRC expect thi s to be the trend

for other reactors?

(b ) Nhich n uclear power plan ts does the NRC

bel ieve may undergo decommi ssion i ng pr i or

to the exp i rat ion of the i r l icen ses?

The NRC st a ff be l i eves that some addi t ion al plan ts wi ll shut down prematurelyi n the n ea r future pr imar i ly because of economic considerat ion s .

The NRC F ive Year P lan for FY 94 -98 states that a substan t i al n umbe r of

reactor l i cen sees a re conduct ing economic analyses which could result i n the

perman en t shutdown of sever al fac i l i t ies dur i ng the plan n i ng per iod. Whi le we

have no spec i f i c i n forma t ion that any l icen see i s now plan n i n g such a dec i sion

i n the n ear term. the re have been recen t indicat ion s that perman en t shutdown s

have been and are be i ng ser iously con sidered. For example

I n the face of a di sadvan tageous P ubl ic Ut i l i ty Commi ssion rul i ng .

Commonwealth Edi son Company i ndicated i n summe r 1992 that the

shutdown of on e or two of the i r six n uclear sta t ion s might be

r equ i red.

133

QUESTI QN2 (a ) and (b) . (Con t i n ued) 2

Northeast Ut i l i t i es r ecently told the staf f that i f steam g e n e r ator s

n eed to be r eplaced at the i r HaddamNeck f ac i l i ty , i t wouldel imi n ate the sl i ght cost advan t ag e of keep i n g the un i t i n servicefor i ts 4 0 ye ar l i cen sed l i fe .

The Ni scon si n P ubl i c Servi ce Company recen tly made a dec i sion to

r eplace steam g e n e r ator s at the i r Kewaun ee n ucle ar plan t , but i t wa s

descr i bed as a close call between maki n g the i nvestmen t vs . shut t i n g

down i n 1998 .

Sever al publ i c r epor ts by i ndustry observer s have also i ndicated that there

could be more prematur e shutdown s i n the future . A 1992 a rt i cle by NUKEM(a n uclea r fuel suppl i er ) n amed 23 n uclear un i ts that mi ght shut down a fte r

4 0 year s or soon er . The l i st i ncludes mostly older , si n g le un i t si tes .

A 1993 r eport by Shear son Lehman B rother s also speculates that as many a s

25 un i ts could face prematur e shutdown i n the n ext sever al to 10 ye a r s .

134

For e a c h n u c l e a r powe r pl a n t . how mu c h mon e y i s

c u r r e n t ly a va i l a b l e f or de c ommi s s i on i n g ? How

mu ch mon e y i s n e e ded t o de c ommi ss i on e a ch

r e a c t or a n d wha t i s t he shor t f a l l , i f a n y?

P l e a se pr ov i de th i s i n f orma t i on by powe r p l a n t .

i t poss i bl e .

The NRC doe s n ot r equ i r e i t s powe r r e a c t or l i c e n se e s t o r e por t

t he amou n t o f f u n ds c u r r e n t ly a va i l ab l e f or de c ommi ss i on i n g .

Ra t he r . t he NRC i n t e n ds t o a u di t l i c e n se e s pe r i od i c a l ly t o

de t e rmi n e whe t he r or n ot t he y a r e c o l l e c t i n g de c ommi ss i on i n g

f u n ds a t a n adequ a t e r a te . B e c a u se t he NRC de t e r r e d t o

l i c e n se e s 'pu b l i c u t i l i t y c ommi ss i on s a n d t he Fede r a l En e r g y

Re g u l a t or y Commi ss i on t o se t t he r a t e s a t wh i ch

de c ommi ss i on i n g f u n ds wou ld be c o l l e c t ed a n d be c a u se mos t

l i c e n se e s a r e on a t l e a st a 3-ye a r r a t e schedu l e . t he NRC ha s

n ot ye t a u di t ed l i c e n se e s wi t h ope r a t i n g r e a c t or s .

Con se qu e n t ly . e xc e pt f or those r e a c t or s t ha t a r e cu r r e n t ly

u n de r g o i n g de c ommi ss i on i n g a n d ha ve su bmi t t ed de c ommi ss i on i n g

f u n di n g pl a n s (se e be low) . t he NRC doe s n ot ye t ha ve i t s own

i n f orma t i on on how mu ch mon e y i s c u r r e n t ly a va i l a b l e f or

de c ommi ss i on i n g . e i t he r by i n di v i du a l r e a c t or or c o l l e c t i ve ly .

Whe n t he NRC pr omu l g a t ed i t s de c ommi s s i on i n g r e g u l a t i on s i n 1 9 8 8 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

136

(Con t i n u ed )

de c ommi ss i on i n g p lan s or othe r pr e l imi n a ry de c ommi ss i on i n g

i n f orma t i on . The se r e a c t or s i n c l ude Ya n ke e -Rowe , Shor e ham, For tSt . Vr a i n , Ra n cho Se c o , a n d Sa n O n of r e 1 . The e st ima t e s i n t he

e n c lose d cha r t a g r e e wi t h e st ima te s su bmi t t e d t o t he NRC by

l i c e n se e s o f t he a bov e pl a n t s . I n mos t c a se s , t he se e st ima t e s

e xc e ed t he e stima t e s de r i ved f r om t he NRC g e n e r i c f ormu l a s i n 1 0

CP R Howe ve r , ma n y of t he l i c e n se e s i t e -spe c i f i c e s t ima t e s

i n c l u de the c os t s o f spe n t f u e l st or a g e a n d di sposa l a n d

demo l i t i on of n on -r a di oa c t i ve ma t e r i a l s a n d st r u c t u res wh i ch , a s

i n di c a t e d a bove , a r e n ot i n c lude d i n t he NRC f ormu l a s . whe n su ch

c ost s a r e su bt r a c t ed f r om l i c e n s e e e st ima t e s , t he s i t e -spe c i f i c

a n d g e n e r i c amou n t s ge n e r a l ly con ve r g e .

A l l powe r r e a c t or l i c e n se e s su bmi t t ed t he i r c e r t i f i c a t i ons by

Ju ly 2 7 , 1 9 9 0 a s r equ i r ed . Vi r t u a l ly a l l powe r r e a c t or

l i c e n se e s chose t o u s e t he f i n a n c i a l assu r a n c e me cha n i sm'

of a n e xt e r n a l s i n k i n g f u n d , i n wh i ch depos i t s a r e made a t

l e a st a n n u a l ly t o a t r u st f u n d su ch t ha t by t he t ime a

l i c e n se e expe c t s t o t e rmi n a t e ope r a t i on s , th e t ot a l amou n t o f

f u n ds i n the ext e r n a l t r u st wou ld be su f f i c i e n t t o pa y

de c ommi ss i on i n g c os t s . B e c a u se a l l powe r r e a c t or l i c e n se e s

ha ve made t he r equ i r e d c e r t i f i c a t i on a n d wi l l u pda t e t he i r

c e r t i f i c a t i on amou n t s a n d , su bse qu e n t ly , t he i r t r u st f u n d

de pos i t s , t o a c c ou n t f or i n f l a t i on , t he NRC doe s n ot e xpe c t

t ha t i t s r e a c t or l i c e n s e e s wi l l ha ve s i g n i f i c a n t

137

(Con t i n u e d)

de c ommi ss i on i n g f u n d shor t f a l l s . Addi t i on a l ly , t he NRC wi l l

pe r i odi c a l ly r e e va l u a t e i t s de c ommi ss i on i n g f ormu l a s a n d wi l l

a dj u s t t hem a c c or di n g ly , i f n e c e ssa r y .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

14 2

I f no n ew r eactors are bu i lt and l i cen sed, what does NRC

project i ts per son n el requ i reme n ts a nd budg et n eeds to be

over the n ext 20 year s? Nhat wi ll be the impact of the se

chan g es on the user fees?

ANSNER.

Approximately 54 percen t of the MRC’s FY 1994 budg et i s for ou r Re actor

P rog r ams , a pproximately 15 pe rcen t for Nuclea r Mater i al P rog rams, and

a pproximate ly 3 1 percen t for Man ag eme n t and Support . There ar e 109 re actor s

presen tly l i cen sed to O perate . Dur i n g the n ext 20 yea r s , the oper at i n g

l i cen se for 32 reactor s wi ll exp i re . The NRC does not kn ow howma ny of these

r eactor s wi ll ren ew the i r l i censes or howmany wi ll be decommi ssion ed.

The re for e , i t i s di ff icult to project per son n el requ i remen ts and budg et .

P ursuan t to the Omn i bus B udg et Reconc i l i at ion Act of 1990 , the NRC i s r equ i redto assess user fees that approximate 100 per ce n t of i ts budg et author i ty , lessappropr i at ion s from the Nuclear Waste Fund, through FY 1998 . Any si g n i f i ca n t

impact on user fees would depend on the future act ion of the Con g r ess wi th

r espect to thi s r equ i remen t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

144

ggggl lgfl (Con t i n ued)

act ivi t i es un t i l an appl i cat ion i s rece ived, (b ) 6 FlEs per year (for two

ye ar s) for l i cen si n g , and (c ) 3 fTEs per year for con struct ion and oper at i on al

over si ght .

For a hypothet i cal 1000 Mwe reactor , howmany FlEs a r e

requ i red for oversee i ng operat ion O f the re actor ver susover see i ng decommission i ng?

Auswgg ,

On the aver ag e , the NRC expends approximately 15 FTE’s pe r r eactor e ach ye ar

to over see r eactor oper at ion . Thi s est imate i ncludes all O f the Reactor

P rog r amresources that are re qu i red for NRC efforts to conduct techn i cal

r eviews , i n spect O per at i n g reactors. ma i n ta i n operat i n g l i cen ses , ma i n ta i n

reg ulat ion s govern i ng oper at ion at reactors, conduct research act ivi t i es toen su re con t i n ued safe oper at ion , and assess reactor oper at i ng even ts and

exper i en ce . Thi s est imate can fluctuate dependi n g on the per forman ce O f

i ndividu al reactors . A n umber of these efforts are common to all reactors and

thus ar e not solely dependen t on the n umber O f oper at i ng reactors . Con tr actor

suppor t (n ot i ncluded i n the above est imate ) also plays an i n teg r al par t i n

the NRC oversi ght act ivi t i es i n areas such as the l icen si ng O f reactor

O per ator s or certa i n team i n spect ion s .

Whi le a few reactors have undergone decommission i ng , thus far i n the NRC’s

hi story no comme rci al power reactor has been fully decommi ssion ed. Thus , the

agen cy has l imi ted exper ience i n the decommission i ng process . As a result , i t

i s di ff icult to project an accur ate level of NRC r esource r equ i r eme n tsassoc i ated wi th e i ther safe stor ag e O f the con tami n ated si te or wi th

ove r see i n g the proce ss n ecessary to make the si te ava i l able for un r e st r i cted

use . wi th thi s i n mi nd, the FTE est imates are as follows:

145

(Con t i n ued)

On e -t i l e costs of approximately 3 to 5 FTEs requ i red to revi eweach deco-i ssion i ng plan .

Approximately 1 FTE re qu i red for radiolog ical surveys pr ior to thesi te be i ng made ava i lable for un restr icted use .

Su bseque n t to the approval O f the decommi ssion i n g plan ,

a pproxima tely 1 to 2 FTE's pe r reactor e ach ye ar for i n spect ion s

un t i l the si te i s made ava i lable for un restr icted use . For the

safe storage O pt ion , thi s could poten t i ally requ i re NRC si te

i nspect ion s for up to 60 years.

14 6

NRC r ecen tly pa r t ic i pated i n a joi n t U. S.-Ca n ada n uc le ar

i n c iden t re spon se dr i ll . Hhat lesson s did the NRC lea r n

from thi s exerc i se?

Thi s spr i ng , the U. S. (and 15 other coun tr i es) pa rt i c i pated i n the F i rstIn ter n at ion al Offsi te Eme rg en cy Exe rc i se ( INEX-l ) . INEX-l was developed a nd

spon sor ed by the Nuclea r En e rgy Ag e n cy (NEA) of the Org an izat ion for Economi cCooper at ion and Developme n t (OECD) . Each part i c i pat i n g coun t ry was supposed

to conduct the INEX exerc i se i ndependen tly ; however , the U. S . and Can adian

pl an n er s dec ided to cooper at ively part i c i pate i n e ach othe r’s exerc i se (s)

si n ce that i s the norma l O per at i n g mode (at the Feder al level ) between the twocoun t r i es .

Ca n ada conducted a si n g le exerc i se i n respon se to the INEX ef for t , simulat i n g

a condi t ion where the acc iden t took place wi thi n the i r ter r i tor i a l boundar ie s

(Ca n ada as ACCI LAND) . Both the NRC and the EP A supported Can ada ’s e ffor ts as

membe rs O f the Moder ator Team. The U. S. dec ided to conduct two exerc i ses -on e

as the coun try where the acc iden t took place (ACCI LAND) and on e a s the coun t ryadj acen t to where the acc iden t took place (NEIGHB ORLAND) . The NRC hosted the

”U. S . as ACCI LAND

'exerci se ; EPA hosted the

"U. S. as NEIGHB ORLAND

“

exe rc i se .

The i ssues iden t i f i ed dur i n g the NRC’s exerc i se (U. S . as ACCI LAND) were as

follows .

The U. S . and Ca n ada have di ffe ren t n at ion a l protect ive act ion leve ls .

The i ndividual States/P rovi n ces can also have the i r own cr i ter i a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

148

QUEST ION 13 . (con t i n ued)

NEI GHBORLAND i s un cer ta i n . This i ssue i s be i n g r eviewed fori n corpor at ion i n to the appropr i ate impleme n tat ion mecha n i sms .

I n thi s exerc i se , wa s commun i cat ion between the two

gove r nmen ts or between our gove r nme n t a nd the st ate s a

poten t i al problem? Nith what coun t r i es should we g ivepr ior i ty to improvi ng our commun i cat ion s capab i l i t i es i n the

even t O f a n ucle ar r eactor i n c iden t ?

Commun i cat ion between the U. S . and Can ada and between the U. S . fede r al

gover nmen t a nd the st ates i s n ot a problem. In ter n at ion ally , eme r g e n cycommun i cat ion systems exi st between the U. S. and Can ada , the U. S . and the

I n ter n at ion al Atomi c En er gy Ag en cy (IAEA) , and the U. S. and Mexi co a nd the

B ahamas . They are con t i n ually tested (5-10 t imes per ye ar ) dur i n g exe rc i ses

and mi nor re al even ts .

Emerg en cy commun i cat ion s between the feder al gover nmen t and States i s tested

b i en n i ally . Addi t ion ally , these commun icat ion chan n els ar e exe r c i sed about 20t imes pe r ye ar dur i n g mi nor real even ts . Due to the fre que n t te st i n g and

joi n t emerg en cy pl an n i n g prog r ams , the implemen t i n g procedur es a re well known

and the eme rg en cy r espon se per son n el ar e fami l i ar wi th each othe r . Thi s i s

esse n t i al to e n sur i n g an effect ive respon se capab i l i ty dur i n g an actual

emerg en cy condi t ion .

Improved commun i cat ion s capab i l i t i es i n con n ect ion wi th a n ucle ar i n c iden t i n

Cuba a nd/or the Russi an Fede r a t ion may n eed to be con side r ed i n the future .

149

Are the di fferen t classi f icat ion scheme s used by the U. S.

and Can ada or other coun tr ies a poten t i al p roblem i nrespondi ng to a n uclear i n c iden t?

NO . U. S. and Can adi an responder s are aware of the di fferen ces i n the i r

scheme s and pract i ce wi th e ach other i n the i r respect ive uses . Simi la r

exerc i ses a re conducted wi th Mexi co, the B ahamas, a nd the I n ter n at ion al Atomi cEn ergy Ag en cy (IAEA) . B ecause O f thi s, there should not be any un toward

problems wi th respondi ng to a n uclear i n c iden t .

150

wou ld you ple ase provide a t able compar i n g the i n i t i a l

re por ts of the sever i ty of a n uclear i n c ide n t wi th the f i n a l

an alysi s O f the seve r i ty of the i n c ide n t for both U. S . and

i n ter n at ion a l reactors . Hhat coun tr i es, i f any , havesystemat ica lly down played the seve r i ty O f n uclea r i n c iden ts

i n the i r i n i t i al statemen ts?

An swe r .

The In te r n at i on al Atomi c En e rgy Age n cy (IAEA) , i n conj un ct ion wi th the Nuclear

En ergy Ag en cy (NEA) of the Org a n izat ion for Economic Coope r at ion and

Deve lopmen t (OECD) , has developed the In ter n at ion a l Nuclear Even t Scale (INES)as a mea n s to promptly and con si sten tly commun i cate to the publ i c the safetysi g n i f ic a n ce of even ts at n uclea r fac i l i t i es . The INES was developed i n

r espon se to pe rce ived problems i n some membe r n at ion s r eg a rdi n g a lack of

open n ess wi th the medi a a nd the publ i c . I t i s not i n tended to be used for

emerg en cy r espon se dec i sionmaki ng or for techn i cal pur poses .

The NRC has commi tted to l imi ted part ic i pat ion i n the prog r am for a two ye ar

t r i al per iod. The NRC i s l imi t i n g i ts part i c i pat ion by on ly cl assi fy i ng and

submi tt i n g a n even t r at i n g form to the IAEA for even t s at comme r c i a l n uclea r

powe r pla n ts that a re classi f i ed as an a ler t or hi gher on the emerg en cyr espon se scale used i n the Un i ted States . The NRC delays assi g nme n t of an

INES level n umber for about a week after eve n t termi n at i on to pr eve n t any

con fu si on wi th O . S . eme rg e n cy classi f i ca t ion .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

152

QQESI I QN_1§ . (Con t i n ued)

de pth safety culture def i c i en c i es or addi t ion al equ i pme n t fa i lur es thatwere not eviden t at the t ime the i n i t i al report was prepared) . There havebeen no i n stances where an even t i n the U. S. was u pg raded.

En closed i s a summa ry table O f the INES reports rece ived concer n i ng

i n tern at ion al n uclear events si n ce the NRC started part i c i pat ion i n the

prog r am. The table also i ncludes f ive U. S. reactor even ts submi tted by the NRCto the IAEA ; The r at i n g of an even t on the INES scale run s fromzero for

even ts wi th no safety sign i f i cance to seven for a major a cc iden t . A synopsi sO f the INES r at i ng me thodolog y i s also provided.

Enclosure

Summary Ta ble

153

En closure

SW ARY TAB LE OF INTERNATI ONAL NUCLEAR EVENT REPORTS

Coun try Scale Cemen ts

BANGLADESH TRI GA REACTORBANGLADESH TRIGA REACTORB ELGIUM EBECBRAZIL ANGRA-ICANADA BRUCEJA G B

DARL INGTON-ZCZECH REP DUKOVANYCZECH REP DUKOVANYF INLAND LOV I I SA-zFRANCE CADARACHEFRANCE LUNEV I LLEFRANCE P ALUEL -ZINDIA MAP S-1

INDIA MAPS-ZINDIA MAP S-2

INDIA NAP S-1INDIA NAP S-2INDIA RAP S-zINDIA RAP S-ZINDIA TAPSINDIA TAPS-1L ITHUANIA IGNAL INA-IL ITHUANIA IGNAL INA-z CHANGED FROM 1RUSSIA BELOYARSKAYARUSSIA CHEL YAB INSK-GSRUSSIA KOLA-IRUSSIA KOLA CHANGED FROM 2RUSSIA TOMSK-TSLOVENIA KRSKOSLOVENI ASHEDEN CHANGED FROM 1SNEDEN

SNEDEN

SNEDENSNEDENSHEDENUKUKUKUK CHANGED FROM 1UKUKUKRAINEUKRAINEUKRAINEUSAUSA

154

QUEST ION 1g . (Con t i n ued) En closur e

SUMMARY TAB LE OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR EVENT REP ORTS

Coun try Scale Comme n ts

P ERRY-1 ODSTHREE MILE ISLAND-1 005

ZION-2 0

MICROTRON 2

0 0 8 O UT O FSCA LE

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

156

QUESTI QN I 7 . (con t i n ued)

elect r on i c ma i l on a ny even t for which the NRC act ivates i ts Ope r at ion sCen ter . Nat ion al level governmen t author i t ies (NRC) not i fy the Nat ion a l level

governmen t author i t i es of n e i ghbor i ng coun tr i es (AECB ) . The U. S . Depar tme n t

O f State makes the i n i t i al n ot i f icat ion to i n ter n at ion a l org an i zat ion s (IAEA) .

Subsequen t i n format ion i s provided di rect ly from the NRC to IAEA .

Nucle a r plan t man ag eme n t makes the i n i t i al not i f icat ion to the n e i ghbor i n gprovi n ces . Local author i t i es (States) provide subsequen t i n format ion to then e i ghbor i ng provi nces . A procedure , i n cludi n g a Not i f i cat ion Form, has beendeve loped whi ch i n cludes the n ame and locat ion of the fac i l i ty , the even t dateand t ime , eme rgen cy class, NRC respon se mode , descr i pt ion O f the even t , and

whether the r e i s a release . The not i f i cat ion also addresses whether there i s

medi a i n ter est , publ i c i n te r est or Con g ression al i n terest .

St ate author i t i es wi ll rece ive di rect not i f i cat ion O f an acc ide n t wi th

tr an sborder e ffects i n that State fromthe respect ive Mexi can State or

Can adi an P rovi n c i al author it i es . The NRC wi ll rece ive di rect n ot i f i cat ion of

an acc ide n t with tr a n sborde r effects fromMexican or Can adi an n at ion al level

gove rnmen t author i t i es . The U. S Depar tmen t O f State , the NRC, the U. S .

Depa r tme n t O f En ergy and the U. S. Envi ronme n tal P rotect ion Ag en cy may r ece iven ot i f i cat ion from IAEA O f an acc iden t that occur s i n anothe r coun try .

As st ated i n r espon se to quest ion 14 , the NRC exe rc i ses commun ica t ion s

procedu r e s sever al t imes pe r yea r .

157

QQESI I QN_1§ Q Texas has O ffe r ed Vermon t the use O f i ts low-leve l wa stedi sposal si te . Nhat problems do you for esee tha t Ve rmon tcould expe r i e n ce i n O bt a i n i n g pe rmi ssion to u se thi s si te

and to shi p i ts waste cross-coun try?

Leg i slat ion to e st a bl i sh the Texa s Low-level Radi oact ive wa ste Di sposalCompact was si g n ed by Texas Gover nor An n Ri cha rds on Jun e 9 , 1993 . Texa s ,

Ma i n e , and Vermon t a r e n amed as the i n i t i al party States , wi th Texasdesi g n ated to be the host State . The leg i slat ion provides that i f e i the r

Ma i n e or Vermon t r at i fy the compact , the ag r eemen t wi ll be i n full force for

Texas and the r at i fy i n g State . Followi ng State approval , the comp act must be

approved by the U. S . Con g r ess . At thi s t ime , we a r e not awa r e of any

problems that would n eg at ively impact the en actmen t of r at i fy i n g leg i slat ionby Vermon t or approval by Con g ress .

Fur ther , NRC knows O f no condi t ion s which would l imi t the ab i l i ty of

g en erators i n the State O f Vermon t to safely shi p low-level r adioact ive waste

(LLN) to Texas . Gen er ators i n the State of Vermon t , as we ll as gen erator s i n

a ll the non -si ted States , have sa fely shi pped LLN out -O f -St ate for di sposa l

for many year s to B arnwell , South Carol i n a ) .

158

STA TEMENT B Y DAVID C. WI L L I AM S, O FFICE O F THE INSP ECTO RGENERA L , NUCL EAR REGUL ATO RY CO MM I SSION

I am plea sed to su bmit the sta teme n t ofmy fisca l yea r (FY) 1994 bu dg et requ est a n dmy FY 1995 budg et estima tes for the O ffice of the I n spector Ge n e ral (O IG) of theU.S. Nu clear Reg ula tory Commission (NRC). The NRC is a regu la tory ag e n cy, whosemission is to en su re tha t civilia n u ses of n u clea r ma te rials i n the Un i ted Sta tes a reca r ried ou t in a way tha t adequ a tely protects public hea lth a n d sa fety , the en vironmen t, a n d ou r n a tion al secu r ity .

My office was esta blished in a ccorda n ce with the I n spector Ge n e ra l A ct Amen d

men ts of 1988 . O u r mission is to pre ven t a n d detect fra ud, waste , an d abuse in the

NRC’

s prog rams a n d opera tion s, a n d to iden tify ways to improve their econ omy a n d

efficien cy . We a re a lso cha rg ed with the respon sibility of en su rin g tha t the NRC’

employs sou n d fin a n cial ma n a g eme n t pra ctices, as requir ed by the Chief Fin a n cialO ffice rs A ct of 1990 . Du rin g this past yea r , both the a udit a n d in vestig a tive prog rams ha ve con tin u ed to produ ce results con siste n t with these importa n t leg isla tivema n da tes.

O u r prog ram fin din gs this yea r ha ve su gg ested the prese n ce of ag en cy-wide prob

lems in the a re a of fin a n cial ma n ag eme n t a n d con cern s with ce rta in reg ula tory pro

g rams. For example , a udit fin din g s revealed tha t the ag en cy pa id for substa n tial

con tra ct services withou t the requ ired approvals a n d verifica tion of in voices. I n ad

dition , over $8 million was u n n ecessa rily”tied u p

”as con tra ct oblig a tion s tha t cou ld

ha ve bee n used for other prog ram in itia tives. To its credit, the NRC ha s performeda substa n tial body of work in respon se to these fin din gs. I n sa fety-rela ted area s, a n

in vestig a tion revealed tha t the ag e n cy relied on u n ve rified n u clea r in du stry test re

su lts when it accepted the use of the fire-ba rrier ma te ria l kn own as Thermo-L a g .

This ma te rial is n ow u sed in abou t 80% of ou r n a tion’

s n u clea r power pla n ts . I n

35192, the NRC in formed the in dustry tha t Thermo-L ag shou ld be trea ted as in ope r

e .

Du rin g FY 1994 a n dFY 1995, we will con tin u e to assist the NRC by reviewin g prog rams a n d ope ra tion s a n dwill work with them to resolve these a n d other fin an cial

a n d man ag emen t deficien cies. To a ccomplish this in FY 1994 , I am requ estin gmillion a n d 4 2 F

'

I‘

Es. This represe n ts abou t a in crease over last yea r a n d

a n in crease of on e FI‘

E . The estima ted requ ireme n ts for FY 1995 a re millionan d 4 3 P

'

I'

Es, which represe n ts an in crea se of a n d 1 Fl‘

E .

The addition al FI‘

E in FY 1994 will be used to su pport my office with in depe n de n tleg a l cou n sel. The I n spector Ge n eral A ct provides us with the a u thority to hire the

n ecessa ry employees for ca r ryin g ou t the fu n ction s, powers, a n d du ties of my office .

The O IG mu st be an objective an d in depe n den t u n it in orde r to effectively evalu a tethe ag e n cy . This position is pa rticu la rly importa n t du e to the n a tu re a n d complexityof ou r existin g in vestig a tive case work. I n depe n den t leg al cou n se l is n ecessary to

en su re tha t n o conflict of in te rest a rises betwee n the ag e n cy a n d the O IG a n d to

a llow the O IG to prope rly fu lfill its sta tu tory du ties a n d respon sibilities.

Se n a tor Glen n a n d other membe rs of Con g ress ha ve made it u n qu estion ably clea rtha t the I n spector Ge n e ra l A ct of 1978, as ame n ded, provides a n I n spector Ge n eralwith the a u thority to employ su ch office rs a n d employees as may be n ewssa ry for

ou t the fu n ction s, powe rs, a n d du ties of a n O IG. I believe tha t to prope rlyca rry ou t my sta tu tory respon sibili ties, it is n ecessa ry for me to employ a n in de

pe n den t cou n se l. I am, the re fore , requ estin g on e FT E for a n a ttorn ey/advisor posi

tion .

Now, I wou ld like to hig hlig ht some of ou r a udit a n d in vestig a tive a ctivities pe rformed ove r the pa st yea r .

Du rin g 1992, se ve ra l O IG a udits a n d in te r n al NRC studies fou n d se riou s breakdown s in NRC

’

s in te rn al ma n a g eme n t con trols . Whe n these brea kdown s occu r ,

se n ior man ag e rs la ck adequ a te assu ra n ce tha t a ctivities u n de r the ir pu rview a re ope ra tin g e fficie n tly , effective ly , an d econ omica lly as requ ired by directives. Fu rthe rmore , beca use in te r n a l con trols a re desig n ed to protect the Gove rnme n t

’

s resou rces,

brea kdown s ca n lead to fr a ud, waste , a n d abuse .

To a chieve the n ecessa ry sa fegu a rds, the Fede ral M a n ag e rs’

Fi n a n cial I n te g ri ty A ct

(FMFIA ) a n d the Chie f Fin a n cia l O ffice rs A ct requ ire Fede ral ma n ag e rs to esta blish

a n d ma in ta in effective systems of in te rn al ma n a g eme n t a n d system con trols. These

requ ireme n ts a re a u gme n ted by O ffice of M a n ag eme n t a n d B u dg e t an d ag e n cy di

rectives. Simply defin ed, in te rn al ma n a g eme n t con trols a re mea su res to sa feg u a rd

resou rces, e n su re complia n ce with a pplicable laws, an d promote efficie n t a n d eco

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

160

while NRC con du cte d an in spection based on the issu es ra ised, the alleg a tion s weren ot fu lly a n d adequ a tely examin ed. Du rin g the cou rse of this in vestig a tion , a secon d

in spection was con du cted by NRC sta ff a n d se ven reg u la tory viola tion s were u n cov

ered.

A hig hly sig n ifica n t aspect of this case is tha t the hcen see employee who brou ghtthe sa fety con cern s to NRC

’

s a tte n tion was fired by the compa n y . The firin g wasalleg edly in retalia tion for the employee ra isin g his con cern s with ma n ag emen t

prior to advisin g the NRC. This ma tte r is be in g examin ed, alon g with other in

sta nws in volvin g the firin g of employees who raised sa fety con ce rn s to the ir em

ployers or to NRC ma n a g emen t. O ur pu rpose is to dete rmin e the adequ a cy of poli

cies a n d procedu res i n place to prote ct the iden tity of whistleblowers a n d the ade

qu a cy of sa n ction s impwed ag a in st compa n ies who en g ag e in reprisa ls.

tion s in volvin g medical u ses of n u clea r ma te ria ls. I n addition to the ma n y cases ofthis n a tu re tha t ha ve a lready been addressed, we recen tly ope n ed a n umbe r of inspection s a n d in vestig a tion s pu rsu an t to ou r pa rticipa tion with a n NRC I n ciden t I nvestig a tion T eam (UT ). The I ff was formed to in vestig a te whether a misadmin istration of a radioa ctive pha rma ceu tica l for trea tmen t of a ca n cer pa tien t con tr ibu ted toher dea th. This office is a ttemptin g to dete rmin e if the licen see in this ca se hadbee n adequ a tely in spectedby the NRC. This ca se a lso addressed a specific alleg a tion

in volvin g a pemon a l rela tion ship between the licen see a n d a n NRC employee in

I n addition to in vestig a tion s where public hea lth a n d sa fety issu es we re of pa ramou n t importa n ce , my office in vestig a ted a n umbe r of a lleg a tion s in volvin g pe rsona l rela tion ships betwee n NRC employee s a n dNRC con tra ctors. M a n y of these cases

con ta in ed pote n tia l cr imin a l aspects in tha t g ra tu ities were rece ived or admin istra

to affect the con tract an d the con tra ctor . This area will con tin u e to be mon itoredvery close ly n ot on ly in respon se to specific alleg a tion s ofwron gdoin g , bu t also from

Fi n a lly, from a fin a n cia l sta n dpoin t, in FY 1992 ou r in vestig a tors con tin u ed to bea lert for cases appropria te for a pplica tion of the P rogr am Fra udCivil Remedies A ct.

I n the n ea r fu tu re , the la rg est dolla r volume case in vestig a tedby my office to da teu n der this sta tu te will be adjudica te d.

This con cludes my report to you on the activities of the past year a n d the cu rren t

sta tu s of ou r ope ra tion . M y office con tin u es to en joy a positive rela tion ship withNRC ma n a g emen t a n d we apprecia te the ir on g oin g su pport a n d coopera tion . The

ag e n cy complies fu lly with ou r in vestig a tive an d a udit in qu ir ies, an dNRC ma n ag eme n t has con siste n tly accepted an d implemen ted ou r recomme n da tion s to improveag en cy opera tion s .

The cha llen g e of providin g assu ra n ce to the NRC on these vita l, complex prog ramsis g rea t. We look forwa rd to assistin g the ag en cy in con tin u in g toomy an d efficie n cy of its prog rams a n d opera tion s. Tha n k you for the opportu n ity to

discuss ou r progr ams.

STA TEMENT O F B IL L M AGAVERN AND JAMES RI CCI O , P UB L I C CIT IZEN’

S

GoodM orn in g , M r . Cha irma n an dmembe rs of the Su bcommitte e . Tha n k you for invitin g P ublic Citize n

’

s Critica l M a ss En e rgy P roject to testify reg a rdin g the Nu clea rRe g u la tory Commission (NRC) a u thoriza tion . We a re pa rticula r ly g ra tefu l for theopportu n ity to prese n t ou r 0 in ion s reg a rdin g the n eed for judicial review ability of

NRC den ials of“

show ca u se’

or 2.206 petition s .

P u blic Citize n is a n on -profit, n on -pa rtisa n org a n iza tion whose objectives in cludesa feg u a rdin g the public hea lth a n d welfa re a n d edu ca tin g the ublic abou t issu es

tha t a ffect the ir hea lth and sa fety . P ublic Citize n has ove r 14 0 , membe rs n a tion

wide . Sin ce its fou n din g i n 1974 , P u blic Citizen’

8 Critical M a ss En ergy P roject hasbee n a stron g advoca te of clea n , sa fe a n d re n ewable sou rces of e n e rgy a n d a cr itic of

the n u clea r in dust I am directo r of Cr itical M ass. With me is James Riccio, a lso

of P u blic Citize n’

s'

fica l M a ss Phi e rgy P roject .

JUDICIA L REVI EW A B IL ITY of or“

SHOW CAUSE P ET IT I O NS

161

The Subcommittee has asked P u blic Citizen to address the qu estion ofwhethe r NRCde n ials of or

“

show ca use”petition s should be ju dicia lly reviewable .

P ublic Citize n believes tha t su ch leg isla tion wou ld con stitu te a first step in retu rn

in g public participa tion to the reg u la tion of n u cle a r rea ctors .

The A tomic En ergy A ct of 1954 provides for exte n sive pu blic participa tion in thelicen sin g of n u clea r rea ctors. However , recen t a ction s by the NRC ha ve se riou slylimited the public

’

s ability to pa rticipa te in the licen sin g , relicen sin g a n d reg u la tion

of n u cle a r rea ctors.

The Commission ha s su ccessfu lly limited the opportu n ity for a hea rin g a fte r the

con stru ction of a n u clear power pla n t (a decision tha t was codified by Con g ress); limited the scope of licen se re n ewa l proceedin gs a n d raised the threshold for admissibility of in te rven e rs’

con te n tion s. O n ce a n u cle a r rea ctor ha s bee n lice n sed to Ope ra te

the ability of the public to pa rticipa te in the reg u la tion of tha t rea ctor is pra cticallyn on existe n t. The on ly opportu n ity for the pu blic to qu estion the Ope ra tion of a n u

clea r rea ctor is throu gh a or“

show ca use petition .

Un de r the Commission’

s reg u la tion s , a n y pe rson may requ est tha t the NRC in stitu te proceedin gs requ irin g lice n sees to

“

show ca use”why the ir licen ses shou ld n ot

be modified, suspe n ded or revoked (10 CFR Un fortu n a tely, it has bee nthe pra ctice of the Commission to summa rily de n y citize n

’

s“

show ca u se”petition s .

B etwee n 1985 a n d the e n d of 1991 , the NRC sta ff issu ed 93 directo r’

s decision s on“

show ca u se petition s reg ardin g n u clea r rea ctor sa fety . The NRC staff rejectedevery pe tition . I n on ly on e case , in volvin g the Ya n kee Rowe rea ctor , ha s the commission exercised its ju risdiction over a

“

show ca use”petition a n d reviewed the

sta ff’

s decision .(Cu rra n , Th e P u blic as E n emy:NRC A ssa u lts on P u blic P a rtic ipa tionin the Reg u la tion of Opera tin g Nu clea r P ower P la n ts, Un ion of Con ce rn ed Scie n tists,A pril 1992, p.

I n a 1990 ca se , Nu clea r I n forma tion a nd Resou rce Service v . NRC, the Commissiona ttempted to a rg u e tha t the public

’

s rig ht to brin g a“

show ca u se”petition was an

adequ a te substitu te for the pu blic’

s right to a hea rin g u n der section 189 (a ) of theA tomic En ergy A ct . Howeve r , Commission a ttorn eys fa iled to come u p with a sin g le

in sta n ce in which a“

show ca u se”petition ra isin g sa fety con cern s had bee n g ra n ted

sin ce the ea rly 19808 .

I n te stimon y g iven a yea r la te r , the NRC admitted tha t it had allowed on ly TWOhea rin gs in respon se to THREE HUNDRED AND TWENT Y O NE requ ests u n der

section in the more tha n 10 yea rs tha t the reg u la tion had bee n on the books.

(Hea rin gs B efore the House Su bcommittee on E n e rgy a nd P ower, House Committee onE n erg y a nd Comme rce , 102d Con g , lst session , M ay 8, 1991 , p . 74 3 This ha rdlycon stitu tes a right to a hea rin g e n vision ed u n der section 189 (a ) of the A tomicEn ergy A ct a n dmakes a joke of the n otion of pu blic pa rticipa tion in the reg u la tion

of n u clea r rea ctor .

B y the Commission’

s own admission , it is eviden t tha t the NRC has almost alwaysden ied to the pu blic tha t which it is expressly a u thorized to seek u n der the reg u la

tion s— proceedin g s a g ain st the licen see . In its defe n se , the NRC has a rg u ed tha t“

show ca u se”petition s ha ve bee n g r a n ted in whole or in pa rt abou t 10 pe rcen t of

the time beca u se they resu lt in some reg u la tory a ction be in g taken . This claim is

impossible to substa n tia te . Sin ce the NRC fa iled to in stitu te a proceedin g ag a in st

the licen see , there is n o pu blic record.

Even if we take the Commission a t the ir word, the NRC fa ils to a ct u pon n in e ou t of10

“

show ca u se”petition s. This can ha rdly be con sidered mean in g fu l public pa rtici

pa tiou .

The Un ion of Con cern ed Scien tists has studied the Commission’

s ha n dlin g of

pe tition s. The study fou n d tha t, even in the ra r e in stan ce where the Commission didn ot reject the “

show ca use’

petition , little if an y mea n in gfu l public pa rticipa tion oc

cu rred. UGS fou n d tha t the NRC followed a“

pa tte rn of delayin g (a ) ru lin g on the

pe tition ers requ ests for hea rin gs u n til it cou ldmake a pla u sible cla im tha t its own ,

priva te in te ra ction s with the lice n see ha d yielded su fficie n t improvemen t to ju stifyden ia l of the hea r in g requ ests. (Cu rra n a t p.

Abse n t judicial re view, it is abu n da n tly clea r tha t the NRC will con tin u e to de n ymost if n ot a ll show ca u se petition s, with little or n o con ce rn tha t it will be helda ccou n table for its decision s.

The Commission’

s ha n dlin g of show ca use petition s ha s bee n in su la ted fromreview by the Su preme Cou rt’s decision in Heckle r v . Cha n ey . (4 70 U.S. 821

I n its decision , the Cou rt held tha t ag en cy decision s n ot to u n derta ke e n forceme n t

proceedin g s a re presumptively u n re viewable u n der the A dmin istr a tive P rocedu re

162

A ct (AP A ). Sin ce 1985 , the Commission’

s a ttorn eys ha ve used the decision in Hecklerv . Cha n ey to a voidjudicial review of petition s.

Howeve r , in M RS v . NRC, a ca se which qu estion ed the NRC’

s on e-step lice n sin g

process, the en ba n c D.C. Circuit decided tha t NRC den ials of petition s whichra ised sig n ifica n t n ew sa fety issu es pr ior topla n t 0 ra tion wou ld be judicially t e

viewable . The D.C. Circuit pu rposefu ll between 2.206 petition s for e n

forceme n t a n d those 2 .206 petition s which arose in the con text of licen sin g a n ewreactor u n der 10 CFR pa rt 52.

However , there is n o ra tion al basis for this distin ction . Why shou ld petition s

which a re filed prior to rea ctor cr itica lity be reviewable a n d those which a re filedon ce the rea ctor is ru n n in g be exempted from review? The public’

s in te rest in the

safety of a rea ctor is n o less dese rvin g O f judicial review afte r a rea ctor is opera tin g .

B a sica lly , those who file 2.206 petition s prior to ope ra tion a n d those who use the

reg u la tion a fte r a rea ctor has been lice n sed a re askin g for the same thin g"Sin ceu n der the n ew

“

on e-step”licen sin g scheme combin ed lice n ses will be issu ed prior to

con stru ction , both petition ers would be requ estin g action u pon a licen se which ha s

P ublic Citize n believes tha t the judicia l review of Nu clea r Reg ula tory Commissiondecision s on petition s for en forcemen t a ction is n ecessa ry, in pa rt, to provide con siste n cy in the trea tmen t O f

‘‘

show ca use”or 2 .206 petition s .

The legisla tion you’ve in trodu cedM r . Cha irma n , if en a cted in to law, will gi ve some

measu re O f a ccou n ta bili to a reg u la tory body tha t has bee n ca lled a“

Rog u e

ag en cy’by you r colleg e n a tor Ken n edy a n d is bette r kn own for its cozin ess with

the n u clea r in dustry than for its te n acity as a reg u la tor . The Nu clea r E n forceme n tA ccou n tability A ct O f 1993 will accomplish its goal on ly if the Commission open s its

reg ula tory process a n d a ctu ally g ran ts a requ est to in stitu te a proceedin g whe n theapplicable criteria ha ve been met. The la n gu a g e of the act shou ld reflect Con g ress

’

s

in ten t tha t 2.206 petition s tha t mee t the cr iteria e n u n cia ted in the act will result in

proceedin g s which ar e open to the pu blic . Therefore , we recommen d tha t the billrequ ire tha t the NRC

“

must g ra n a 2 .206 petition which meets the applicable cr i

te ria by in stitu tin g a show ca use’ ’

prowedin g . B y doin g so Con g ress ca n a void theproblem of NRC cla imin g to ha ve g ra n ted a 2.206 petition merely by ha vin g a o

kn owledg ed the problem a n d ta kin g wha te ver a ction it deems appropria te .

The Chairma n’

s leg isla tion sets up a n a rbitra ry a n d ca pricious sta n da rdby which tojudg e NRC den ials of 2 .206 petition s by cross refere n cin g the Admin istra tive P rocedu re A ct . However , given the defe re n ce shown to admin istra tive ag en cy decision s bythe federal be n ch, e n u n cia tin g a n a rbitra ry a n d capr iciou s or a n abuse O f discretion

atan da rd in the leg isla tion itself would se rve to u n equ ivocally ma n ifest the in te n t ofn g ress

P rovidin g for the review ability of 2 .206 petition s Will by n o mea n s ope n the flood

g a tes O f litig a tion . The Cha irma n’

8 bill se ts a sta n da rd for g ra n tin g pe tition ers’

re

qu ests tha t is hig he r tha n the sta n da rd set by the proposal a pproved u n an imou slylast yea r by the Hou se I n te rior Committee . The requ iremen t tha t petition er

‘‘

demon stra tes ma te ria l eviden ce rea son ably in dica tin g

”sig n ifica n t n on complia n ce or a

substa n tia l ha za rdwill serve to screen ou t a n y fri volous petition s tha t may be filed.

Ifiirthe rmore , history shows tha t prior to the decision in Heckler v . Cha n ey, whe n

petition s were thoug ht to be re viewable , the NRC wa s n ot overly bu rde n ed byjudicia l review O f de n ials O f“

show ca use”petition s . A n y arg umen t to the con tra ry

is specious g iven the disproportion a te resou rces O f the Commission a n d the citize n

petition er . Th t majority O f citizen petition ers do n ot ha ve the time , mon ey or

resou rces to c

e

en g e den ia ls of 2 .206 petition s .

Na tu r al Re sou rce s Defe n se Cou n cil (NRDC) a n d Westview P ublishin g Will soon bereleasin g a book en titled Con trollin g the A tom in the 213 t Cen tu ry . P ar t of the book

examin es the leg al a n d admin istr a tive ba rrie rs to pu blic pa rticipa tion posed b the

2.206 process. I ts a u thor es tha t judicia l review ability of the Commission 8 de

n ials of petition s wo d n ot“

u n du ly in fri n g e on the Commission’

s admin istrative pre rog a tives. I n deed it a ppea rs tha t the re a re n o ca ses in which a reviewin gcou rt eve n reman ded a Commission ru lin g on a 2.206 petition for a fu ller expla n a

tion , let a lon e on e in which a cou rt orde red the ag en cy to ta ke a n a ction which it

did n ot reg a rd as a ppropria

Give n the history of the Nu clea r Reg u la tory Commission ’

9 den ia l of 2 .206 petition s

the cu rre n t process fa ils to rovide the O pportu n ity for pu blic pa rticipa tion e n vi

sion ed by the tion . these den ia ls re viewable ma y make the Commission thin k twice fore de n yin g the u blic a h a n d ma y make the NRC morea ccou n ta ble . M r . Cha irma n , we a pp ud you r in u ction O f the Nu clea r En force

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

164

I n light of this an d other serious sa fety problems, the NRC’

s resou r ces would bebetter spe n t en sur in g the sa fe O pe ra tion of n u clea r power pla n ts u n de r their cu rre n tlicen ses, ra the r tha n lookin g ahead to a re n ewa l process tha t is still hypothetica l.

DEREGUL A TI ON

The Nu clea r Re g ula tory Commission is forg in g ahea d With an in itia tive to climin a te requ iremen ts mar g in a l to sa fety

”. This effort was in itia lly u n dertake n in t e

spon se to Georg e B ush’

s election -yea r dereg ula tory g ambit, despite the fa ct tha t theNRC, a s a n in depe n den t ag e n cy, was n ot requ ired to respon d to the the n P reside n t

’

s

directive . I n 1993 the NRC still seems to be stu ck i n the B ush-Q u a yle mode ofweaken in g importa n t hea lth a n d safety regu la tion s a t the behest of in du stry .

A t a public workshop held A pr il 27 a n d 28 , the NRC a n d the in du stry prese n ted a

pla n to move from cu r re n t reg u la tion s to“

pe rforman ce-based”reg u la tion s. The

a re as sla ted for dereg ula tion by the in du stry , Commission a n d sta ff a re : con tain

men t leaka g e testin g , fire protection , combustible g as con trol systems, requ ests forin forma tion , qu ality assu ran ce , en vironmen ta l qu a lifica tion of electrica l equ ipmen ta n d physical protection requ iremen ts for power reactors.

While both in dustry a n d commission sta ff a re ag reed on the n eed to sa ve the in du stry mon ey , there seems to be disa g reemen t a s to how an d to Wha t exte n t pe rforma n ce-based reg ula tion Will repla ce the cu rren t reg u la tion s on the books .

“

Everybody ta lks abou t performa n ce based reg u la tion , in cludin g the Commissioners,

’ ’

saidDa vidWard, Cha irma n of the A dvisory Committee on Re a ctor Sa feg u a rds

(ACRS), B u t it’

8 on e O f those thin gs tha t when you say it fast it sou n ds good, bu twhen you g et down to fig u rin g ou t exa ctly wha t it is, it is prove n to be very diffitfrom wha t I can see .

The Commission sta ff believe this deregu la tion would be a ccomplished by shiftin gNRC

’

s requ iremen ts from reg ula tion s to reg ula tory gu ides. M a n y from in dustrysta ted tha t this did n ot go fa r e n ou g h, tha t mere shiftin g O f requ ireme n ts from regu

la tion in to regula tory g u ides would ha ve little impa ct on the cost of reg ula tion to

the n u clea r in dustry .

While , the NRC ha s lon g bee n a ccu sed of n ot reg u la tin g the n u clea r in dustry , thisCommission seems be n t on assu rin g tha t n o reg u la tor Will ever be able to en force

the letter of the law. The shift in requ ir emen ts may n ot effect the in du stry’s bottom

lin e bu t it does effect the en forcea bility of the Commission’

s requ iremen ts. Re g u latory gu ides a r e ju st tha t, g u ides. They a re n ot reg u la tion s a n d a re n ot en forceable .

The n u clea r in du stry a n d the Commission ma y cla im tha t dereg ula tion W ill e n ha n cesa fety, bu t, Wha t this in itia tive is rea lly abou t is sa vin g the n u clear in du stry mon ey .

I n a meetin g be fore the A dvisory Committee on Rea ctor Safeg u a rds (ACRS) discussin g the elimin a tion of requ ir eme n ts ma rgin al to sa fety , M r . William Ra sin of theNu clea r M a n ag eme n t A n d Resou r ces Cou n cil (NUM ARC) sta ted tha t this in itia tivewas prompted by the

“

rea liza tion tha t we a re alrea dy to a large deg ree as a n in dus

try pretty n on -competitive a n d the situ a tion is g ettin g worse M r . Ra ssin a ckn owlcd tha t a n umber O f well-ru n n u clea r plan t a re n ot compe titive Withi n the ir own

u tilities a n d tha t the n u clea r in du stry must“

u n derta ke this a ctivity if we a re to

rema in a competitive a n d viable in du stry .

”(Summa ry of ACRS 388th M ee tin g , Re

g a rdin g Secy-92-263 , E limin a tion of Requ iremen ts M a rg in a l to Sa fety, A ORS-R-14 79,A u g ust 6 8, 1992, pp. 250

Howeve r , Dr . Ha rold L ewis of the A CRS.

comme n ted tha t the profitabili ty of the n u

clea r in du stry is n ot the reg u la tors’

prima ry con ce rn ; a poin t tha t seems to ha vebee n lost on the Commission .

This tre n d towa rd de reg u la tion is especially distu rbin g in lig ht of the fa ct tha tman y n u cle a r rea ctors do n ot cu r ren tly meet the NRC requ iremen ts for sa fety . The

Commission’

s desire to redu ce the requ ireme n ts for fire protection u n de r 10

P a rt 50 a ppe n dix R is a pe rfect example of the NRC a ttemptin g to de reg u la te awaya costly problem for the n u clea r in du stry . Se ve n ty-e ig ht Ope ra tin g rea cto rs a rou n dthe cou n try ha ve in sta lled a fire ba r rier kn own as Thermo-lag . Un fortu n a tely,Thermo-L ag doesn

’

t work. I n tests where the fire ba rri e r is su pposed to last for

three hou rs, Thermo-la g su ffe red ca ta stro hic fa ilu re in an hou r a n d a half. In fire

ba r r ie r te sts of shorte r du r a tion The rmo also expe rie n ced ca ta strophic fa ilu re .

Not on ly does Thermo-L a g fa il to preve n t the sprea d of fires bu t it may eve n becombu stible . Whe n the Nu clea r I n forma tion a n d Resou rce Se rvice filed a peti

tion on the issu e the NRC de n ied the“

show ca use"

lg:tition eve n thoug h the qu es

tion of combu stibility of The rmo-L ag rema in s O pe n . the r tha n requ ire the costlycorrective a ction of repla cin g the fire ba rrie r the NRC is a ttemptin g to de reg u la teaway the problem by redu cin g the requ ireme n ts of a ppe n dix R .

165

A g ain , the example prese n ted above in dica tes the n eed for the proposed leg isla tion .

P rovidin g for judicia l re view of NRC den ia ls of petition s will n ot tu rn the

Commission in to a model reg u la tor . I t will merely provide a modicum of a ccou n t

ability to a reg u la tory body in despe ra te n eed O f oversig ht.

NRC L EGISL A TI VE P ACKA GE

We ha ve reviewed the NRC’

s leg isla tive proposals, a n dwe ha ve n o Objection s to itscon te n ts .

CONCLUSI ON

The Chairma n’

s bill Will be the first step in providin g for me a n in g fu l pu blic par ticipa tion in the reg u la tion of this most u n forg ivin g techn ology . P u blic Citize n

’

s Griti

cal M ass En ergy P roject would a g a in like to tha n k the Cha irma n a n d the su bcommittee for this O pportu n ity to prese n t ou r opin ion s. We look forwa rd to the speedy

passa g e O f this importa n t leg isla tion .

166;

QUE ST I ONS FOR B I L L MAGAVERN

DI RECT O R CRI T I CA L MA SS P RO JECT

THE NRC HA S H I ST O R ICA L L Y P RO VIDED FO R A VERY ERO AD

INT ERP RET AT ION O F I NJURY . CONS I ST ENT e a JUDI CI A L CONCE P T S

O F STANDI NG , I N I T S ADJUDICA TO RY P RO CEEDI NGS . so T HA T THE

A L READY ST RET CHED RE SOURCES O R THE NRC AND THE FEDERA LCOURT S woUL D NO T B E OVERWHE L MED , sowWOUL D YOU CHANGE T HO SEST ANDI NG RE Q UIREMENT S I N e w O F THE T REMENDOUS VO L UME or

ADDI T IONA L L IT IGAT ION THE P RO P O SED L EGISL A T I ON I NV IT ES ?

THE COURT S HAVE CONS I ST ENT L Y HE L D T HA T THE CONS IDERA T ION.

GRANT I NG AND DENIAL S O F SECT ION P ET IT I ONS FAL L SSQ UARE L Y WIT H IN THE NRC 'S ENFORCEMENT DI SCRET ION . T HE Y HAVEA L SO HE L D THA T SUCH DECI S IONS ARE REV IEWAB L E SHOUL D THE

AGENCY DEFAUL T ON I T S RE S P ONS I B I L IT Y T O CONS IDER A P ET I T ION .

I T I S DI FF ICUL T T O SEE ANY B ENE F IT AND I N FACT A T REMENDO US

DOWNS IDE , I N T ERMS O F CO ST , T O A L L OW JUDIC IA L REV I EW FO R

T HESE T Y P ES O F P ET IT IONS . P L EA SE T EL L THE COMM ITT EE HOW

T H I S P RO P O SA L WI L L HEL P RE SO L VE I SSUES RATHER THAN T I E UP

RESOURCES I N L IT IGAT ION AND DEL AY .

WOUL D YOU ADVO CA T E TH IS T YP E OF AUT OMAT IC R IGHT O F JUDICIA LREV IEW A P P L Y T O THE ENFO RCEMENT DI SCRET ION O F A L L FEDERA LAGENC I ES A S WE L L ?

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

JUDI CI A L REV IEW O F ENFO RCEMENT T YP E DECI S IONS B Y THE NRC

SHOUL D B E CO NGRE SS IONAL L Y REVERSED?

169

033 AUG19 PM L2 5hB u vers L p Con g ress“ a rch Critica lM ass Hea lthResea rchGroup L itig a tion Group

Ra lphNader. Fou nde r

A u gu st 19, 1993

The Hon . Joseph I. L ieberm an

The Hon . A lan K. Simpson

En vironmen t an d P ublic Works Commi tteeSu bcommittee on Clean A ir a n dNu clear Regu la tionWashin g ton , DC . 20510—6175

Dear Sen a tors L ieberman an d Simpson :

En closed a re ou r a n swers to the qu estion s you sen t u s on July 29 for therecord of the Subcommittee’

s Jun e 30, 1993 , hearin g on issu es rela ted to the Nu clea r

Regu la tory Commission .

Sin cerely,

B illM a gavernDirector

Critical M ass En ergy P roject

170

1 . P u blic Citizen does n ot advoca te a cha n g e to NRC stan din g requ iremen ts. The

proposed leg isla tion will n ot O pen the proverbial flood g a tes of litig a tion . I n fact, in

testimon y before the Subcommittee a t the Jun e 30 hearin g, NRC Cha irman Ivan Selinsta ted tha t

"

prior to Heckler v . Chan g fewer than ten caseswere brou ght challen g in ga gen cy decision s, an d the NRC enforcemen t decision was u pheld in each of

those cases. Chairma n Selin testified tha t en a ctmen t of the leg isla tion in trodu ced byChairman L ieberma n an d Chairman B a u cus wou ld n ot overwhelm the resou rces of

the NRC . Con sequ en tly, we see n o n eed to amen d the NRC'

s stan din g requ iremen ts

in respon se to the proposed legisla tion .

2 . While Cha irman Selin has tes tified tha t the proposed legisla tion will n ot overlybu rden the NRC, there is an ecdotal eviden ce to su g gest tha t judicial review of

Commission den ials of petition s would have positive policy implica tion s. In

199 1 the Nu clear Regu la tory Commission testified tha t it had allowed on ly two

hearin gs in respon se to 321 requ ests u n der section in the more than 10 years

tha t the regu la tion had been on the books. (Hea rin gs B efore the House Subcommitteeon En e rgy an d P ower , Hou se Committee on En ergy an d Commerce , 102d Con g , lst

session , M ay 8, 1991 , p. 74 3 B oth these hearin gs occu rred prior to the decision

in Heckler v . Chan ey. Thus, ra ther than result in litig a tion , the prospect of ju dicialreview may actu ally en cou ra ge the a g en cy to in stitu te a proceedin g u n der 10 CFR

to resolve the qu estion s raised by the petition .

3 . P ublic Citizen believes tha t ju dicial review of ag en cy den ials of en forcemen t

petition s is warran tedwhere an agen cy’

s sta tu te is so a n tiqu a ted tha t it fa ils to

provide con cern ed ci tizen s the Opportu n ity to su e the ag en cy to en force its own

regu la tion .

A s Cha irman L ieberman n oted a t the hea rin g, man y en vironmen tal sta tu tes

have citizen su it provision s. Citizen s su i ts are n ow an importan t part of twelveen vironmen tal sta tu tes, in clu din g the Clean A ir A ct, yet the A tomic En ergy A ct fails

to provide for su ch su its. Judicial review of en forcemen t discretion is particu larlyimportan t for n u clear regu la tion becau se citizen s have n o other leg al recou rse bu t the

pe tition . I f the Sen a te would prefer addin g a Citizen su it provision to theA tomic En ergy A ct ra ther than the judicial review proposed by Chairman L ieberman ,

we would su pport tha t su bstitu tion .

4 . Ra ther than settin g vagu e stan dards, the legisla tive la n gu ag e cited in you r qu estionin clu des terms of ar t used throu ghou t n u clea r regu la tion in cludin g the A tomicEn ergy A ct O f 1954 , En ergy Reorg an iza tion A ct of 1974 a n d the Commission

'

s n ew

reactor lice n sin g regu la tion s in 10 CFR P a rt 52 .

The NRC itself ackn owledges tha t there a re timeswhen ju dicial review O f the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

172

103D CONGRESS1ST SESSI ON

To au thorize appropria tions for the Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commission for fisca l

years 1994 and 1995 , an d for other pu rposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 24 (leg islative day, JUNE 1993

Mr . B AUCUS (for himself, M r . L I E B ERM AN, an d M r . SI MP SO N) (by requ est)in trodu ced the followin g bill; which was read twice a n d referred to the

Committee on E n vironmen t an d P ublic Works

A B I L L

To authorize appropriation s for the Nuclear Re g u latory Commission for fiscal years 1994 a n d 1995

,a n d for other

purposes .

B e it en acted by the Sen a te a n dHouse of Represen ta

2 tives of the Un ited Sta tes of Amer ica in Con g ress assembled,

This A ct may be cited as the Nuclear Re g u latory

5 Commission Authorization A ct for fiscal years 1994 a n d

6 1995

173

YEARS 1994 AND 1995 .

(a) SA L ARI ES AND EX P ENSE S — There a re hereby au

thorized to be appropriated to the Nuclear Regu latory

Commission in accordan ce with the provision s of section

261 O f the Atomic En ergy A ct of 1 954 (4 2 U.S.C. 20 1 7)

and section 305 of the En ergy Reorganization A ct O f 1 974

(4 2 U.S.O . for fisca l year 1 994 to

rema in ava ilable un til expen ded, of which

shall be authorized from the Nuclear Waste Fu n d; a n d,

for fiscal year 1 995 to remain available

un til expen ded,of which shall be authorized

from the Nuclear Waste Fun d .

(b) OFFICE OF THE INSP ECT O R GENERAL — There

a re hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Nuclear

Re g u latory Commission’s Office O f the In spector Gen eral

in accordan ce with the provision s O f section 108 of the

In spector Gen eral A ct Amen dments O f 1988 (3 1 U.S.O .

for fiscal year 1 994 to remain

available until expen ded, and for fiscal year

1995 to remain available un til expen ded .

SEC. 3 . A L L O CA T I O N O F AM O UNT S AUTHO RI ZED.

(A) I N GENE RAL — The sums authorized to be appro

pri ated un der section for fiscal'

yea rs 1994 a n d

1995 sha ll be allocated as follows:

8 1 102 18

174

(1 ) n ot more than for fiscal year

1 994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal

year 1 995 may be used for Re a ctor Safety a n d

Safeguards Reg u lation

(2) n ot more than for fiscal year

1 994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal year

1995 may be used for Re a ctor Safety Re search

(3) n ot more than for fiscal year

1 994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal year

1 995 may be used for Rea ctor Special a n d In de

pen den t Reviews,In vestigation s a n d En forcemen t

(4 ) n ot more than for fiscal year

1 994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal year

1 995 may be used for Nuclear Material a n d L ow

Level Waste Safety a n d Safeguards Regulation

(5 ) n ot more than for fiscal year

1 994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal year

1995 (from the Nuclear Waste Fun d) may be used

for High-Level Nuclear Waste Re gulation

(6) n ot more than for fiscal year

1994 a n d n ot more than for fiscal

year 1995 may be used for Nuclear Safety Man ag e

ment and Support

8 l 182 18

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

176

Commission . Such n otification will con tain a full a n d com

plete statement of the reallocation to be made a n d the

fa cts a n d circumstan ces relied upon in support . of such

reallocation . Fun ds authorized to be appropriated from

the Nuclear Waste Fun d may be used on ly for the Com

mission ’s high-level n uclear waste activities a n d may n ot

be reprogrammed for other Commission activities .

SEC . 4 . RETENT I O N O F FUNDS .

Mon ey received by the Nuclear Re gulatory Commis

sion for the Oooperative n uclear safety research prog ram,

services ren dered to foreign governmen ts a n d in tern ation al

organ ization s,a n d the material a n d in formation access au

thorization prog rams (in cludin g crimin al history checks

un der section 1 4 9 of the Atomic En erg y A ct of 1954 (4 2

U.S.O . may be retain ed a n dused, subject to appro

priation s, for salaries a n d expen ses associated with those

activities,n otwithstan din g the provision s O f section 3302

of title 3 1,Un ited States Code

,a n d shall remain available

un til expen ded .

SEC. 5 . TRANSFER O F CERTA IN FUNDS .

From amou n ts appropriated to the Nuclear Re gu

la tory Commission pursuan t to section of this A ct,

except for appropriation s from the Nuclear Waste Fu n d,

the Commission may tran sfer sums to its Office of the

In spector Gen eral: P rovided,That the total tran sfer du r

8 1 162 18

177

in g a ny fiscal year may n ot exceed 5 percen t of the amoun t

authorized under section O f this A ct for that fisca l

Notwithstandin g a ny other provision s of this A ct, n o

authority to make paymen ts un der this A ct shall be effec

tive except to such exte n t or in such amoun ts as a re pro

vided in adva n ce in appropriation s Acts .

8 1 182 18

178

103D CONGRE SS

1ST SE SSIO N

T O provide for judicial review of Nu clea r Re gu la tory Commission decision s

on petition s for en forcemen t action s, a n d for other pu rposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25 (leg islative day, JUNE 1993

M r . L I E B ERMAN (for himself a nd M r . B AUCUS) in trodu ced the followin g bill;which was read twice a n d referred to the Committee on E n vironmen t a n dP ublic Works

A B I L L

T O provide for judicial review O f Nuclear Regulatory Commis

sion decision s on petition s for en forcemen t action s,a n d

for other purposes .

B e it en acted by the Sen a te a n dHou se of Represen ta

N tives of the Un itedSta tes ofAmerica in Con g ress assembled,

3 SECT I O N 1 . SHO RT T I T L E .

This A ct may be referred to as the Nuclear En force

Ui

men tAccoun tability A ct O f 1993

6 SEC . 2 . ENFO RCEMENT P ET I T I O NS AND JUDICI AL REVIEW.

Section 189 of the Atomic En ergy A ct O f 1954 (4 2

U.S.O . 2239) is amen ded by addin g at the en d the follow00

9 in g n ew subsection :

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

180

103D CONGRESSlS'I ‘ SESSI ON S. l 1 6

To amen d the E n ergy Reorg an iza tion A ct of 1 974 an d the A tomic E n ergA ct of 1954 to en ha n ce the sa fety and secu rity of n u clear power facilities,

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25 (leg islative day, Jmm 1 993

B AUCUS (for himself, Mr . L I E B ERMAN , an d M r . SIMP SO N) (by request)in trodu ced the followin g bill; which was read twice an d referred to the

Committee on E n vironmen t and P ublic Works

A B I L L

amen d the En ergy Reorgan ization A ct O f 1 974 a n d the

Atomic En ergy A ct of 1954 to en han ce the sa fety a n d

security Of nuclear power facilities,a n d for other pur

B e it en acted by the Sen a te a n dHouse of Represen ta

tires of the Un ited Sta tes ofAmer ica in Con g ress assembled,

SECT I O N 1 . SHO RT T I T L E .

This A ct may be cited as the Omn ibus Nuclear

Power Safety a n d Security En han cemen t A ct of 1993

SEC. 2 . NO T I FI CA T I O N RE Q UI REM ENT S .

Section 206 O f the E n erg r Reorgan ization A ct O f

1974 is amended to read as follows:

W

OO

Q

Q

UI

h

b)

181

“NO NCO M P L I ANCE

SEC. 206 . (a) A n y person con structin g own in g, op

cratin g, or supplying a compon en t of a n y facility or activ

ity which is licensed or otherwise reg u lated by the Com

mission pursuant to the Atomic En ergy A ct of 1954 (in

cluding any fac ility lea sed by the Un ited States En r ich

ment Corporation), or pursuant to this A ct, who obta in s

information reasonably indicating that such facility or ac

tivity or a basic compon en t su pplied to such facility or

a ctivity

(1 ) con tain s a defect, or

(2) fails to comply with the Atomic En ergy

A ct of 1 954 or any applicable rule,regu lation

,order

,

or license of the Commission,

shall immediately n otify the Commission of su ch defect or

failure to comply if su ch defect or failure to comply cou ld

create a substa n tial safety hazard as defined by the regu

la tion s promu lg ated by the Commission ,un less such per

son has actual knowledg e that the Commission ha s been

informed in writing of su ch defect or failure to comply.

(b) The Commission may issue such regulation s a n d

orders as it deems n ecessary to en su re complian ce with

this section,includin g reg u lation s a n d orders requiring

an y person subject to this section to devise a n d implement

procedures to iden tify,evaluate

,a n d report defects a n d

8 1 108 18

182

failures to comply subject to the n otification requiremen ts

of su bsection (a) .

(0 ) Any person who fails to provide a n otification

required by su bsection (a), or who violates a n y regulation

or order issued under subsection (b), shall be subject to

a civil pena lty in the same manner an d amoun t a s pro

vided for violations subject to a civil pen alty under section

23 4 of the Atomic E n erg r A ct of 1 954 ; except that a n

in dividual who is subject to the requiremen ts of this sec

tion solely because of employmen t by a person su bject to

those requ irements shall only be assessed a civil pen alty

for failure to provide n otice pursuan t to subsection (a) if

such in dividual ha s actua l knowledg e of the reportin g re

qu iremen t imposed by su bsection (a) a n d of a defect as

provided in su bsection or of a failur e of compliance

as provided in subsection

(d) The requiremen ts of this section shall be pre

emin en tly posted on the busin ess premises of a n y person

who is required to n otify the Commission of a defect or

failure to comply un der subsection (a) .

(e ) The Commission may con duct su ch reason able

in spection s, in vestigation s, a n d other en forcemen t a ctivi

ties as it deems n ecessa ry to en sure complian ce with the

provision s of this section a n dwith a n y regulation s an d or

ders issued thereun der .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2

3

184

(b) The first sen te n ce of su bsection a. of section 234

of the Atomic E n erg r A ct of 1 954 is amen ded to read

as follows

a. Any person who

(1 ) violates (A) a n y licen sing provision of sec

tion 53,57

,62 , 63 , 81 , 82 , 10 1 , 103 , 104 , 1 07 , or

109,or an y ru le , reg u lation ,

or order issued there

un der, (B ) the certification provision s of section

1 701,or a n y rule or reg u lation issu ed thereun der ,

(C) any term,condition , or limita tion of a n y license

or certification issu ed un der a n y of these section s, or

(D) any ru le,reg u lation , or order issu ed un der sec

tion 1 61 b.

,1 61 i. , or 1 61 o .

,or

2) commits a n y violation for which a license

may be revoked u nder section 186 ,

shall be su bject to a civil pen alty, to be imposed by the

Commission, of n ot to exceed for each such vio

lation .

SEC. 4 . ADVI SO RY CO MM I T TEE O N REACTO R SAFEGUA RDS.

Section 29 of the Atomic En ergy A ct of 1 954 is

amen ded by deletin g the last two sen ten ces of that section .

Section 1 61 k . of the Atomic E n erg r A ct is

amen ded

8 1 108 18

185

1 ) by inserting a n d licen sees (includin g em

ployees of con tractors of licensee s) afte r (a t a n y

(2 ) by str iking owned by or contracted to the

Un ited Sta te s or being tran sported to or from such

facilities an d inserting own ed by or contra cted to

the United States or licensed by the Commission, or

being transported to or from such facilities,

(3 ) by inserting or a license of the Commis

sion after or a con tractor of the Departmen t of

En ergy or Nuclea r Re g u latory Commission a nd

(4 ) by inserting an d the Commission after

The Secreta ry”.

6 . UNAUTHO RIZED INT RO DUCT I O N O F DANGEROUS

Section 229 a . of the Atomic E n erg r A ct of 1954 is

amended by addin g afte r cu stody of the Commission the

words or subject to its licensing authority u n der this A ct

or any other Act

STRUCTI O N.

Section 236 a . of the A tomic Energy A ct of 1954 is

amended to read as follows

8 1 100 18

3 9999 05982 822 6

a . An y person who inten tion ally an d willfu lly de

2 stroys or causes physical damag e to, or who in ten tion ally

3 a n dwillfully attempts to destroy or cause physical damag e

(1 ) any production facility or u tilization facil

ity licen sed un der this A ct;

(2) a n y n uclear waste storag e facility licen sed

un der this A ct;

(3 ) a n y production ,utilization

,or waste stor

ag e facility su bject to licen sin g un der this A ct du r

in g its con struction where the destruction or damag e

caused or attempted to be caused could affect public

health a n d safety durin g the operation of the facil

(4 ) a n y n uclear fuel for a utilization facility li

cen sed un der this A ct,or any spen t nuclear fuel

from such a facility;18 shall be fin ed n ot more than or imprison ed for

19 n otmore than ten years of both.

20 SEC . 8 . ADM IN I ST RA T IVE SEARCH WARRANT S .

Section 1 61 c . of the Atomic En ergy A ct of 1 954 is

22 amen ded to read as follows:

(1 ) make su ch studies a n d in vestigation s, ob

tain such in formation,a n d hold such meetin gs or

hearin gs as the Commission may deem n ecessary or

8 1 108 18

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

188

basis for the warrant, an d each such search shall be

commenced a n d completed with rea son able prompt

n ess .

(3 ) “fitn esses su bpoen aed pursuan t to sub

parag raph (B ) of pa ragraph (1 ) shall be paid the

same fees an d mileag e as a re paid witn esses in the

district courts of the Un ited States.

SEC. 9 . AM ENDMENTS TO TA B L E O F CO NTENTS.

The Table of Con te n ts of the Atomic En ergy A ct of

1 954 is amen ded by striking Sec . 234 . Civil Mon eta ry

Penalties for Violation s of Licen sin g Requiremen ts and

inserting in lieu thereof Sec . 234 . Civil M on eta ry P en

a lties for Violation s of Rules,Re g u lation s, Orders , or L i

cen sin g Re quiremen ts

I SB N 0—1 6—0 4 1 57 5—6

9 0 0 0 0

8 0 1 6 0 4 1 57 5