20.10.1 The United States

The example of the United States is relevant as it has been followed, at least partially, by many countries. Moreover, the US regulatory body has maintained cooperation agreements with many other regulatory organizations.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is the centrepiece of nuclear legislation in the United States. The AEC was an independent agency charged with promoting, licensing and overseeing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the AEC and (in 1975) created the NRC, which was given the authority to grant licenses and provide oversight of safety for nuclear civilian applications.

The NRC maintains two different approaches for licensing nuclear power plants. When the NRC was established, the decision was taken to have a two-step process linking the issuance of a construction permit, followed by an operating license. The licensing requirements under this approach are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 10 CFR Part 50. In 1989 the US decided to adopt a new approach (set out in 10 CFR Part 52, described further on), without abolishing the first.

Any application for a construction permit must be submitted in accord­ance with 10 CFR Part 50. Once received — in the form of a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report — an application is checked for completeness and formally docketed. NRC staff undertake a safety review in accordance with a Standard Review Plan (SRP) leading to a Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The SER is transmitted to a statutory Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), which provides independent advice to the NRC on the issuing of a construction permit. Before taking its final decision, the NRC has to conduct, in parallel with the safety evaluation, an environ­mental review of the application and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). At the same time, antitrust advice is sought from the US Attorney General’s Office. With all this information, a public hearing is formally conducted and chaired by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB), where interested parties may raise questions. Any dissatisfied party can request a review to the US Court of Appeals; otherwise, if the application is successful, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issues the construction permit.

The request for an operating license should be requested two to three years before the scheduled construction completion. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is the basic document covering this phase. The main purpose of the evaluation is to check that the NPP has been built in accordance with the design approved in the construction permit and that it complies with the applicable requirements. A revision of the EIS is neces­sary, but neither an antitrust report nor a public hearing is conducted, unless formally requested.

The approach described in 10 CFR Part 52 was created to facilitate the standardization of nuclear power plants and simplify the two-step process by unifying the construction permit and the operation license into a single

Construction and Operation License (COL). It also introduced an early site permit and a design certification rule. The early site permit is aimed at resolving site issues, including suitability of the site for emergency prepar­edness and the potential existence of environmentally superior sites.

The design certification recognizes that specific designs comply with established safety regulations. Any applicant for a construction permit or operating license (under 10 CFR Part 50) or a combined license (under 10CFR Part 52) may refer to a certified design and thus ease the licensing process. As in the case with 10 CFR Part 50, the EIS, the antitrust evaluation and the public hearings are maintained.