a hearing on safety and environmental issues raised by the application. Interested parties could provide written or oral statements to the threemember Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) as limited participants in the hearings, or they could petition for leave to intervene as full participants, including the right to cross-examine all direct testimony in the proceeding and to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the hearing board.

NRC regulations provide an opportunity at an early stage in the review process for potential intervenors to be invited to meet informally with the NRC staff to discuss their concerns about the proposed facility. This provision has not been commonly used; as a result, the safety concerns of the critics have not been considered seriously and formally until the hearings. The problem with this timing is that it places the critics in the position of attempting to change or modify a decision that already has been made rather than influencing its formulation.

The environmental hearings could be conducted separately to facilitate a decision on a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) or could be combined with the safety hearing. The SER and any supplements to it plus the final EIS would be the major pieces of evidence offered by the NRC staff at the hearing. The ASLB would consider all the evidence presented by the applicant, the staff, and intervenors, together with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties, and issue an initial decision on the CP. ASLB's initial decision would be reviewed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ALAB) on exceptions filed by any party to the proceeding or, if no exceptions were filed, on ALAB's own initiative ("sua sponte"). Since Three Mile Island, all ASLB decisions must be approved by NRC before they take effect. NRC also considers petitions for review of appeals from ALAB decisions.

NRC regulations provide that the Director of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may issue an LWA after ASLB has made all of the environmental findings required under NRC regulations for the issuance of a CP and has reasonable assurance that the proposed site is a suitable location from a radiological health and safety

standpoint, and after Commission approval. A licensing board may begin hearings on an LWA within a maximum of 30 days after issuance of the final EIS.

When construction of a plant had progressed to the point where final design information* and plans for operation were ready, an application for an operating license (OL) would be prepared. The OL process has been very similar to that for a CP. The applicant would submit a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which sets forth the pertinent details on the final design of the facility, including a description of the containment, the nuclear core, and the waste-handling system. The FSAR also would supply information concerning plant operation, including managerial and administrative controls to be used to ensure safe operation; plans for preoperational testing and initial operations; plans for normal operations, including maintenance, surveillance, and periodic testing of structures, systems, and components; and plans for coping with emergencies. The applicant also would provide an updated ER. Amendments to the application and reports could be submitted from time to time. The staff would prepare another SER and EIS and, as at the CP stage, ACRS would make an independent evaluation and present its advice to NRC by letter. The ASLB would also review the OL application and issue a decision. Until recently, the ASLB has granted all requests for OLs. However, in January 1984 the ASLB refused to grant an OL to Commonwealth Edison Co. for the two-unit Byron station. As in the procedure for a CP, this decision will be reviewed by the ALAB and the Commission.

A public hearing is not mandatory prior to issuance of an OL. However, soon after acceptance of the OL application, NRC would publish notice that it was considering issuing a license, and any person whose interest would be affected by the proceeding could petition NRC to hold a hearing. The hearing would apply the same adjudicatory procedures (e.g., admission of parties and evidence, cross-examination) and decision process that pertain to a CP.

*The final design illustrates how the plant has been built and thus reflects all amendments and variances issued and backfits ordered by NRC since the CP.

A stated goal of NRC (under normal circumstances and barring any important new safety issues) is to conclude ACRS and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation reviews and the hearing process before the utility completes construction of the plant. Current NRC regulations authorize the staff to issue an OL restricted to 5-percent power operation; full power operation must be approved by the Commissioners themselves. Upon receipt of the low-power OL, the utility could begin fuel loading and initial startup. The plant then would have to undergo extensive testing before it could begin commercial operation. Through its inspection and enforcement program, NRC maintains surveillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its service life. As discussed in chapter 5, this surveillance is intended to assure compliance with NRC reg

ulations designed to protect the public health and safety and the environment.

Other Federal agencies with statutory or regulatory authority over some aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear powerplants include: Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Defense, Council on Environmental Quality, River Basin Commissions, and Great Lakes Basin Commission. These agencies review, comment on, and administer specific issues under their jurisdiction.

The Role of Emergency Planning

NRC requires license applicants and licensees to specify their plans for coping with emergencies. NRC regulations established in 1980 specify minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining "an acceptable state of emergency preparedness", including information about the emergency response roles of supporting organizations and offsite agencies (16). For plants just starting construction, these plans have to be stated in general terms in the PSAR and submitted in final form as part of the FSAR. Detailed procedures for emergency plans would have to be submitted to NRC no less than 180 days prior to the scheduled issuance of an OL. Licensees with operating plants in 1980 were also required to submit detailed emergency plans to comply with post-TMI regulations.

NRC regulations specify a broad range of information that must be included in emergency plans. Utilities must develop an organizational structure for coping with radiological emergencies and define the authority, responsibilities, and duties of individuals within that structure as well as the means of notifying them of the emergency. Second, the utility must specify the criteria on which they determine the magnitude of an emergency and the need to notify or activate progressively larger segments of the emergency organization (including NRC, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments). Third, the utility has to reach agreements with State and local agencies and officials on procedures for notifying the public of emergencies for public evacuation or other protective measures and for annual dissemination of basic emergency planning information to the public. Fourth, programs must be established to train employees and other persons to cope with emergencies, to hold periodic drills, and to ensure that the emergency plan and its implementing procedures, equipment,

and supplies are kept up to date. Finally, the utility must develop preliminary criteria for determining when, following an accident, reentry of the facility would be appropriate and when operation could be resumed.

The role of emergency planning has become increasingly controversial since the accident at Three Mile Island. Local governments must participate in the preparation of the emergency plan and reach agreements with the utility on public notification, evacuation, and other procedures, and they may intervene in the hearings on the plan. This is the principal leverage a local government has over the operation of a nuclear plant, and it can hold up the issuance of an OL. For example, at the Shoreham nuclear powerplant, significant differences in scope between the emergency plan proposed by the utility and that developed by the county are the primary issue that must be resolved before the utility can obtain an OL. There is a possibility that those differences might not be resolved. The adequacy of the utility's emergency planning also has become an issue at the Indian Point Station due to its proximity to densely populated New York City.

Such situations are of great concern to nuclear utilities, their investors, and the surrounding communities. If emergency plans are not developed in a timely and satisfactory fashion, the plant owners will not be granted a license to operate their plant. Moreover, emergency planning problems are difficult to anticipate, and their resolution is not necessarily assured by prudent management. Thus, they tend to increase the uncertainties associated with nuclear plant schedules. This source of uncertainty might be eliminated if final approval of emergency plans were required much earlier in the licensing process or even as a condition of State issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience for a nuclear plant.

A wide range of State and local legislation, regulations, and programs affect the licensing, construction, and operation of nuclear powerplants.

During the last decade, more and more States moved to a more thorough consideration of need for power and choice of technologies, environ