QUESTION FROM SENATOR WALLOP

Nuclear Advanced Reactor and Licensing Provisions Of S. 341

Question 10:

Answer:

One of the Administration's stated goals in reforming the
licensing process is to remove regulatory obstacles to the
construction and operation of nuclear plants. Portions of
the Administration's proposal are currently addressed in
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's procedures.

a. In your view, how does the Administration's proposal
differ from the Commission's existing regulations?
b. Which of the Administration's reform elements could
not be accomplished by the NRC under existing
statutory authority?

c. Which of the areas covered in the Administration's
proposal is, in your opinion, the most crucial to
license reform?

The Administration bill builds upon the Commission's
existing regulations by: requiring that the combined
license identify the inspections, tests, exercises, and
analyses required for the emergency plan and their

acceptance criteria, and requiring resolution of emergency
planning issues which arise after combined license
issuance to be resolved only in a proceeding to modify or
suspend operation; establishing an informal post-
construction hearing process on issues of nonconformance
with the acceptance criteria of a combined license;
setting a target duration of a hearing; preventing delay
of operation during a hearing unless required for adequate
protection of public health and safety; and eliminating

delay of operations resulting from combined license

amendments if no significant hazards are involved.

There are varying legal opinions as to what extent new legislation would be needed to accomplish the

Administration's reforms. All of the areas covered in the

Administration's bill are crucial to licensing reform.

Licensing Reform

Question 11:

QUESTION FROM SENATOR WALLOP

Opponents of efforts to streamline the licensing
scheme by Tating the coroumstances that would require
a post-construction hearing claim that this limitation
would reduce subito participation in the process. The
provision in S. 341 would retain full public
part-croation in scant safety issues but would
Consider chose 'ssues and provide for their resolution
in the commercense proceeding prior to
construction. Ould you please describe how the
AT S um s proposal differs from S. 341 in this

Answer:

S. 342. the licensing process in the

nistratiam s bill includes more opportunities for Te geners" aublic to get their voices heard in a meaningful way--right up front when it is most useful. There a full public hearing on the suitability of the a`ant site, a full public hearing on the adequacy of the design to be certified, and a full public hearing prior to the NRC issuing a license to build the a`ant. After these hearings, the design will be Prazen, essentially preventing the builders from making any changes to the design that the public agreed upon.

Beth S. 341 and the Administration's bill provide the public with an opportunity to address concerns about whether the construction faithfully conformed with the license at the end of plant construction. However, the Administration's process differs by providing the opportunity for an informal hearing on conformance of

the constructed plant with the combined license.
Informal hearings are more accessible to, and serve the
public interest better, by allowing more efficient
application of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
technical expertise in resolving the issues raised.
The informal hearing procedures would be similar to
those used by the Environmental Protection Agency in
the administration of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and by the NRC in certain proceedings.

In addition to the public input opportunities in the
legislation, the public would have the opportunity to
request the NRC to revoke, modify, or suspend a plant's
license at any time. This opportunity exists under
current NRC regulations and is not affected by either
S. 341 or the Administration's bill.

In reply to your letter of March 8, 1991 containing questions from Senator Wallop and yourself, I am enclosing my response.

It was a pleasure for me to be able to testify on March 5, 1991 before your Committee on Titles XII and XIII of S.341, the National Energy Security Act of 1991. As I stated in my testimony, I believe that the licensing provisions of Titles XII and XIII are vitally important to the nuclear option in that they clarify Congressional intent and will remove grounds for extended litigation. Let me once more note that the key problems inhibiting the increased use of nuclear power in this country are institutional and not technical. Your proposed legislation addresses the key issues and we support its enactment. Some of the testimony that I and others gave on March 5th were comments aimed at further enhancing this legislation and I have asked my organization to work with your Committee staff so that we can further address the issues and clarify the actions necessary to overcome them.

The Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR), with its well established 30-year development, industrial infrastructure, and experience base, is clearly the technology for the near term. This position is reflected by U.S. industry in NPOC's "Strategic Plan for Building New Nuclear Energy Plants," and by DOE in their Light Water Reactor programs. The need for near-term Federal Government support in an "Institutional" Demonstration of an ALWR, as proposed in section 12005 of Title XII of your Bill, is required to demonstrate the workability of the institutional processes and thus to assure that the private sector risk is manageable.

The longer term advanced reactor technologies, such as liquid metal and high temperature gas, lack the extensive 30-year experience base of operating plants, and thus will need a "technical" demonstration to achieve NRC certification and commercialization. Section 12006 of Title XII focuses on this "technical" demonstration. We understand from discussions with your staff that Section 12007 of Title XII provides the appropriations to carry out Section 12006, which we believe will represent a value to the energy security of the U.S. in the next century.