Page images
PDF
EPUB

3. OPERATING LICENSE FOR POWER OR TEST REACTORS

[graphic]

Under current AEC procedures, the same five phases applicable to construction permits ((1) application, (2) review by AEC staff, (3) review by ACRS, (4) hearing, and (5) final action) are repeated at the operating license stage. Moreover under the rule of the Commonwealth Edison reactor case (see p. 33 below) and the subsequent amendment to section 50.57 of the regulations, the five phases may be required before granting a "provisional" operating license (to operate at low power), and again for a "final" license (to operate at full power). If the hearing examiner or the commission so specifies, they may be required also on amendments to the license application or the license.

4. "PARALLEL PROCEDURES"

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Under a policy statement issued in March 1959, and proposed regulations, part 115, issued by AEC in late November 1960, AEC has established "parallel procedures" for review of safety aspects of AECowned power reactors to be constructed and operated at non-AECowned sites, as under the so-called "second round" of the power demonstration program. The "parallel procedures" provide five similar phases: (1) application, (2) AEC staff review, (3) ACRS review and a public report, (4) public hearing, and (5) final action. Although AEC owns the reactor, the principal contractors are considered the "applicants" who must prove the safety of the proposed reactor. The costs of preparing safety reports and testimony are normally absorbed by AEC under its contracts with the constructors and operators.

[graphic]

5. OTHER GOVERNMENT-OWNED REACTORS

AEC-owned reactors, other than those in the power demonstration program subject to "parallel procedures," are reviewed by AEC staff, and in some cases by the ACRS, but no public report is made or public hearing held. Reactors such as the large production units at Hanford and Savannah River, and the many experimental facilities at Idaho, Argonne, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Brookhaven, are normally located at AEC- or Government-owned sites.

Reactors may be owned by or transferred to the Department of Defense under section 91(b) of the act, and constructed and operated by DOD without an AEC license. AEC staff normally reviews the safety features and the case may be referred to the ACRS, but no public report is made, or public hearing held. This procedure applies to the aircraft nuclear propulsion (ANP) program, U.S. Navy submarines, and power reactors at military installations, such as Fort Belvoir, Va., and the DEW line.3

Uncertainty has marked relationships between the AEC and the DOD with respect to safety responsibility for military reactors (see Hearings before the JCAE on Amending the Atomic Energy Act and Authorization of the Stanford Accelerator Project, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (1959)). Further uncertainty has been created by the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Reynolds v. United States, No. 16689, 9th Cir., (December 29, 1960), where the Court apparently held that the authority of the Commission extended only to private participation in the atomic energy industry.

[graphic]
[graphic]

The Department of Defense is the only Government agency which may own and operate a reactor without an AEC facility license. The Maritime Administration will own and operate the first U.S. nuclearpowered merchant ship, the NS Savannah, and AEC has announced it is applying "parallel procedures" to this licensing, including an application, AEC staff review, ACRS review and public hearing, before taking final action on the operating license. The construction authorization for the Savannah was granted without a public ACRS report or public hearing. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will construct and operate nuclear-propelled rockets and space vehicles which, under the act, must be licensed by AEC. Applicable procedures, including the availability of a public ACRS report and public hearings, have not been announced.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

6. LICENSING OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS

AEC procedures for licensing nuclear materials are described in detail in volume II at pages 159-166, and are understandably more simplified than those for the licensing of nuclear facilities because of the lesser hazards presented.

(a) Source and special nuclear materials

Applications for a license to possess or use these materials must contain information required by the act and AEC regulations, including quantity and type of material desired, proposed use, procedures, safety precautions, and technical qualifications of the applicant. The Division of Licensing and Regulation carries out an administrative review to determine completeness, and a technical review for safety evaluation. If satisfied, it issues a license, and sends copies to the appropriate State health department and AEC Operations Office authorizing shipment to the licensee. No ACRS review, public hearing, or Commission review is required, unless the case is contested, or involves waste disposal, as described below.

If the Division of Licensing and Regulation decides to deny a license application, or modify, suspend or revoke an existing materials license, it must follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and AEC Regulations, Part 2, including notice to the applicant, and opportunity for a public hearing.

[graphic]
[graphic]

(b) Byproduct material

[graphic]

Applications for a license to possess, use, or own byproduct material, or radioisotopes, must contain the information required by the act and the AEC regulations, including quantity, type and form of material desired, proposed use, training and experience of the user, the designated radiological safety officer, and safety instrumentation and procedures. The Isotopes Branch of the Division of Licensing and Regulation carries out a review, both administrative and technical, checking such features as the proposed radiation detection instruments and monitoring equipment. A prelicensing visit by a member of the Isotopes Branch staff may be made to the applicant's premises to evaluate the facilities, proposed radiation safety program and procedures, particularly in the case of large-scale users or waste disposal activities. Applications which propose new and unusual diagnostic, therapeutic or experimental uses in humans may be sent to the Ad

visory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes for its review and recommendations. An application for the release of radioactive materials to the environment is approved only if the hazards evaluation by the Isotopes Branch is concurred in by the Radiation Safety Branch, Division of Licensing and Regulation, and the Office of Health and Safety. If there are possibilities of water contamination, the environmental and sanitary engineering aspects are reviewed by appropriate specialists in the Division of Reactor Development.

As in the case of source or special nuclear materials, the Division of Licensing and Regulation may then issue the license if a satisfactory evaluation is made, or provide notice and opportunity for hearing if denial, modification, suspension or revocation is proposed. No ACRS review or public hearing is required in noncontested cases. (c) Special procedures for applications for waste disposal purposes A formal, and a supplementary, docket of all such applications is maintained by the Isotopes Branch, with reproduced copies of all documents in the formal document (application, amendments, reports from applicant, and AEC correspondence to applicant), filed in the public document room. A prelicensing visit is always made. If sea disposal is involved the Division of Reactor Development (Environmental and Sanitary Engineering Branch) evaluates and comments on the proposed site. The licensee is advised of applicable regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

If staff review indicates that a license should be issued, a notice of proposed issuance is published in the Federal Register including information as to how interested parties may intervene and request a formal hearing. The AEC will schedule a hearing upon intervention of an interested party, or upon its own motion if it determines that widespread public interest justifies a hearing. Ordinarily this is not held in Washington but at a point near the proposed site of the applicant's operations. In the waste disposal cases, unlike the reactor facility cases, there have been instances in which the applicant has contested adverse determinations by the staff. Intervention has been much more common. For an example of a contested waste disposal licensing proceeding, see the Industrial Waste Disposal Corporation case summarized in Part III (p. 40).

[graphic]
[graphic]

The staff, in the course of its study, has reviewed the AEC November 1960, report entitled "Regulatory Program of the Atomic Energy Commission" reprinted in volume II. The staff has also reviewed the records of certain cases, and had the benefit of informal discussions with representatives of applicants, intervenors, AEC staff, ACRS, and one of the Commissioners.

This part will summarize and comment on several of the most significant cases in the fields of (A) facility licensing, (B) materials licensing, and (C) rulemaking.1

A. FACILITY LICENSING CASES

Power Reactor Development Co. (PRDC)—Docket No. F-16

The AEC chronology of the PRDC licensing proceeding is reprinted in volume II at pages 173-179.

On March 31, 1955, the Power Reactor Development Co. (PRDC) submitted a proposal to AEC under the first round of the power demonstration reactor program for construction and operation of a 100,000 electrical kilowatt fast breeder sodium-cooled reactor, near Lagoona Beach, Mich. On June 26, 1955, the Commission approved the proposal as a basis for negotiation, and on March 26, 1957, a contract was executed between AEC and PRDC under which PRDC would construct, own, and operate the reactor, and AEC would provide research and development assistance, and waive charges for the use of nuclear fuels for a 5-year period.

On January 7, 1956, PRDC submitted an application for a construction permit. The AEC staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) both undertook safety evaluations of the proposed reactor and site. After several meetings between representatives of PRDC, the AEC staff and the ACRS, the ACRS submitted a report to AEC on June 6, 1956. This report stated that the Advisory Committee "believes there is insufficient information available at this time to give assurance that the PRDC reactor can be operated at this site without public hazard." The ACRS report also suggested an experimental program of at least three phases, and concluded by stating:

The Committee considers it important that bold steps be taken to advance the development of the fast breeder reactor concept and commends the willingness of the PRDC to risk its capital and prestige in advancing the development of this reactor concept. But the Committee does not feel that the steps to be taken should be so bold as to risk the health and safety of the public. It is important for the AEC to provide sufficient development facilities and experimental information that the safety aspects of the PRDC reactor can be reliably appraised in advance of operation of the reactor itself.

[graphic]

1 Discussion of case histories includes developments to December 31, 1960.

« PreviousContinue »