permanent waste repository and monitored retrievable storage facility. We believe that the Department's reactor programs to develop, standardize, and certify, under 10 CFR Part 52, advanced nuclear powerplants will satisfy the first two prerequisites addressing safety and economic risks.

If all four of these prerequisites are met, the utility industry has indicated that they would once again consider nuclear power to meet new electrical demands. Senior

management of nuclear utilities have indicated, in the nuclear

industry's Strategic Plan For Building New Nuclear

Powerplants, that a demonstration project is not a

prerequisite to the next nuclear plant order.

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHNSTON

NRC Design Certification

The

Question 2 (a): There is currently some disagreement on what constitutes a standardized design for purposes of receiving a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. disagreement, as I understand it, rests with how much detail would be required for a so-called standardized design to be approved.

Answer:

On December 27, 1990, Admiral Watkins wrote to NRC
Chairman Carr expressing his concern that the NRC may have
been planning to require reactor vendors to submit too
much design detail, thereby substantially delaying the
date by which the NRC could certify a reactor design. On
February 15, 1991, the NRC announced its policy on the
level of design detail.

Does the NRC's February 15 policy adequately address the
Secretary's concerns?

We are satisfied with the resolution presented in

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy statement. In their statement, the Commission defined the level of detail required for design certification as that necessary to make final safety determinations, with reasonable

assurance.

This is consistent with the views expressed in Admiral Watkins' correspondence to Chairman Carr. We are closely monitoring implementation of the policy by the NRC staff. We are planning to work with NRC and OMB to establish schedules for the design certification process in accordance with this regulation.

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHNSTON

NRC Design Certification

Question 2 (b): Based upon what we know now about NRC's policy

Answer:

and process for approval of certified designs, how soon can we expect the NRC to certify each of the advanced reactor designs now being developed?

In the February 15 communication, the Commission required
the staff to provide them, by June 1, with schedules for
the design certification reviews. The applicants, the
Nuclear Management and Resources Council, and the NRC
staff are currently working together to establish mutually
agreeable schedules by that date. The objective
established by the National Energy Strategy (NES) is to
have all four designs certified by 1995. DOE will be
participating in interagency reviews of the schedules with
NRC and OMB as they are developed and will maintain the
position that the objective of the NES should be met.

Emergency Planning

Question 3:

Answer:

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHNSTON

Resolution of emergency planning issues early enough in the licensing process is a desirable goal for both those looking to license a plant and those who are charged with protection of the public health and safety.

a. Does the Administration's National Energy Strategy bill go further than the NRC rule with respect to emergency planning?

b. Does your legislation envision congressional action on emergency planning issues?

C.

What makes you think that Congress is any more likely to legislate away emergency planning issues now than it was when the fate of both Shoreham and ·Seabrook was hanging in the balance?

Yes, the Administration's National Energy Strategy
(NES) bill does go further than the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) rule with respect to emergency
planning. Our bill requires resolution of emergency
planning issues prior to issuance of combined licenses
and requires that the combined license shall identify
the inspections, tests, exercises, and analyses required
for the emergency plan and the acceptance criteria for
their satisfactory completion. Further, our bill
provides that offsite emergency planning questions
arising after a combined license is issued, including
those of a decision by a State or locality not to
participate in a previously approved State, local, or
utility plan, be addressed only in a proceeding to

modify or suspend operation under the combined license. Clearly our bill does envision congressional action on these emergency planning issues.

Regarding your third question, we are requesting that Congress take action on offsite emergency planning provisions now because resolution is important to the future use of nuclear power and we believe that the Administration bill incorporates a fair approach which addresses both the needs of prospective plant owners and the public.