ML13304B056
| ML13304B056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1981 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mattos D HANFORD, CA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107060161 | |
| Download: ML13304B056 (14) | |
Text
JUN 2 3 1981 Dorothy A. Mattos, City Clerk City Hall -
400 North Douty Street Hanford, California 93230
Dear Ms. Mattos:
The June 2, 1981 resolution (No. 1742) of the City Council of the City of Hanford, supporting the licensing of the San Onofre 2 and 3 nuclear power plants has been referred to me for reply. I am pleased to provide the following information regarding nuclear power plant licensing in general, and licensing of San Onofre 2 and 3 in particular.
Since the TMI-2 accident, a significant amount of the NRC resources have been concentrated on identifying the lessons to be learned from that accident and the associated requirements that are necessary and sufficient for the continued operation of licensed facilities and for the issuance of new operating licenses.
That effort culminated with the issuance of the NRC's TMI Action Plan, approved in June 1980.
The development of that document and the NRC's increased attention to the safety in the 70 operating reactors took so much of our attention and our resources that we were unable to license new plants for a year after the accident. Following the issuance of the Action Plan, new operating licenses were issued to Sequoyah and North Anna units late last summier and to Farley, Unit 2 in March of this year and to Salem Unit 2 in May of this year.
Currently, the overall picture is one of a licensing process that is returning to predictability at a considerably enhanced level of safety. However, the implementation of this enhanced level of safety has raised a number of potential new issues in the contested hearings for both operating licenses and construction permits around the country. Some of these units were substantially complete at the time of the Three Mile Island accident or have been completed since then.
Thus, we do face a situation in which, for the first time, our hearings are or will be continuing for a significant number of plants that will be complete and ready to operate before the hearings conclude.
This situation is an indirect consequence of the THII accident, which required a re-examination of the entire regulatory structure.
We are not satisfied with the present situation and we are working to find ways to accelerate the hearings on these plants whose continued idleness prevents a substantial invest ment from benefiting either the consumers or the operating utilities.
6107060161 B10623 PDR ADOCK 05000361 PDR
-2 23 1981 To that end, major improvements In the licensing process are underway or being considered. These improvements include:
Expedited and rescheduled review by the NRC staff for plants in the short term category--those presently complete and those to be completed in 1981 and 1982.
Increased efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent Commission and Appeals Board review. The time now being taken between issuance of the supplemental staff evaluation report and initial decisions by licensing boards averages 18 months. The NRC believes it can compress that time to about 10 months by tightening up the times allowed for each part of the prehearing process and by providing firmer time management of the whole process. The Commission is publishing for public comment proposed changes to its rules which would accomplish this.
Changes in the review process the Commission itself exercises over these cases have been adopted which will save at least two months in each case that has been in hearing.
Early completion of NRC staff review for plants to be completed in 1983 and beyond. This will require better scheduling of reviews and increased staff resources applied to casework. Some staff resources can be redirected by deferring lower priority work and shifting some work to other NRC offices.
Before making such a change, the Commission will carefully review the impact on other essential safety-related activities.
One further step to be considered is legislation to authorize the Commission to issue limited, interim operating licenses before completion of hearings where all applicable safety requirements have been met.
In summary, we are confident the actions we have taken and those we will take will provide major improvements in licensing schedules without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety.
With regard to licensing of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, the staff has completed the major part of its review.
Staff safety evaluations were issued-on December 31, 1980, February 6, 1981, February 25,
- 1981, and May 8, 1981.
Th review of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was completed on March 12, 1981.
The Final Environmental Statement was issued by the NRC staff in April, 1981.
The hearing on this project is scheduled to begin on June 22, 1981.
JUN 2 3 1981
-3 We appreciate your interest in the San Onofre project. Please be assured that the NRC is taking every reasonable action to expedite the licensing process, consistent with our commitment to ensure the public health and safety.
Sincerely Original signedSbY Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
SEE NEXT PAGE.
SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
-3 We appreciate your interest in the San Onofre project. Please be assured th he NRC is taking every reasonab1 action to expedite the licensin.
- ocess, consis
.,with our commitment to ensure the public health and safe Sincerely Darrell Eisenhut, Director isi of Licensing 0
of Nuclear Reactor Requlation DISTRIBUTION:
SEE NEXT PAGE.
OFFICEO ML
.L:
L.'
HFo~dL:jBFia RL scoD/u
'sURNAMEO.. H o d j......
S' t..
DATE 64to/81 6/
81 6 '}81 64 81 J_
DATE 1
O F F
- R****
- C O P Y..
NRC FORM 318 (1-0 inrn M 024un0 OFFICIAL RECORD CO PY USGPO: 1981-335-960
ED I ATEL Jf the due date does not to respond L
'71 adequate tm to 'his ticketYO Yre revised due dat-7 o
a euest a
' t r odto du dt T h e r e q u e s t m u s t i n c l u d e I ~
L) r n b u m te d t h r o u co Your correspondence coordin to te R
- ma7room7, S
LO the N RR S uch requests foets musthin 3 da r green tick Requests for revision dys after assignment d e s mor b e vde o ye770w ticket due daLes May be Made, vith Lutfit throgh thjustification, through the w'eekly WITS update.
he revised due date,
1776I approved by pPAS, e used to' 1 be used ttrack division c On schedues orresponden
JUN 2 3 19b8 DISTRIBUTION:
PDR PDR l
w/cy of incoming TERA LB#3 Files Henton ECase DEisenhut RTedesco Fliraglia HRood JLee (w/cy of incoming)
NHughes (w/cy of incoming)
SCavanaugh (NRR 322)
LBerry PPAS SHanauer RMattson TMurley RVollmer BSnyder OFFICE.
SURNAMEO.........................................................................................
DATE 0 NRC FORM 318 (10/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1980-3298
JUN 2 3 1981 Dorothy A. Mattos, City Clerk City Hall -
400 North Douty Street Hanford, California 93230
Dear fls. Nattos:
The June 2, 1981 resolution (No. 1742) of the City Council of the City of Hanford, supporting the licensing of the San Onofre 2 and 3 nuclear power plants has been referred to me for reply. I am pleased to provide the following information regarding nuclear power plant licensing in general, and licensing of San Onofre 2 and 3 in particular.
Since the TMI-2 accident, a significant amount of the NRC resources have been concentrated on identifying the lessons to be learned from that accident and the associated requirements that are necessary and sufficient for the continued operation of licensed facilities and for the issuance of new operating licenses.
That effort culminated with the issuance of the NRC's TMI Action Plan, approved in June 1980.
The development of that document and the NRC's increased attention to the safety in the 70 operating reactors took so much of our attention and our resources that we were unable to license new plants for a year after the accident. Following the issuance of the Action Plan, new operating licenses were issued to Sequoyah and North Anna units late last sufriwer and to Farley, Unit 2 in March of this year and to Salem Unit 2 in [ay of this year.
Currently, the overall picture is one of a licensing process that is returning to predictability at a considerably enhanced level of safety. However, the implementation of this enhanced level of safety has raised a number of potential new issues in the contested hearings for both operating licenses and construction permits around the country. Some of these units were substantially complete at the time of the Three Mile Island accident or have been completed since then.
Thus, we do face a situation in which, for the first time, our hearings are or will be continuing for a significant number of plants that will be complete and ready to operate before the hearings conclude.
This situation is an indirect consequence of the TMI accident, which required a re-examination of the entire regulatory structure.
We are not satisfied with the present situation and we are working to find ways to accelerate the hearings on these plants whose continued idleness prevents a substantial invest ment from benefiting either the consumers or the operating utilities.
PDR ADOCK 050003
- -PDR JUN 23 1981 To that end, major improvements in the licensing process are underway or being considered. These improvements include:
Expedited and rescheduled review by the NRC staff for plants in the short term category--those presently complete and those to be completed in 1981 and 1982.
Increased efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent Commission and Appeals Board review. The time now being taken between issuance of the supplemental staff evaluation report and initial decisions by licensing boards averages 18 months. The NRC believes it can compress that time to about 10 months by tightening up the times allowed for each part of the prehearing process and by providing firmer time management of the whole process. The Commission is publishing for public comment proposed changes to its rules which would accomplish this.
Changes in the review process the Commission itself exercises over these cases have been adopted which will save at least two months in each case that has been in hearing.
Early completion of NRC staff review for plants to be completed in 1983 and beyond.
This will require better scheduling of reviews and increased staff resources applied to casework. Some staff resources can be redirected by deferring lower priority work and shifting some work to other NRC offices.
Before making such a change, the Commission will carefully review the impact on other essential safety-related activities.
One further step to be considered is legislation to authorize the Commission to issue limited, interim operating licenses before completion of hearings where all applicable safety requirements have been met.
In summary, we are confident the actions we have taken and those we will take will provide major improvements in licensing schedules without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety.
With regard to licensing of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, the staff has completed the major part of its review. Staff safety evaluations were issued on December 31, 1980, February 6, 1981, February 25, 1981, and May 8, 1981. The review of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was completed on March 12, 1981.
The Final Environmental Statement was issued by the NRC staff in April, 1981.
The hearing on this project is sched led to begin on June 22, 1981.
JUN 2 3 1981
-3 We appreciate your interest in the San Onofre project. Please be assured that the NRC is taking every reasonable action to expedite the licensing process, consistent with our commitment to ensure the public health and safety.
Sincerely Original signedbV\\
D~ar:--. '. -wisenhuZ Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
SEE NEXT PAGE.
SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
-3 We appreciate your interest in the San Onofre project. Please be assured.2 th-e NRC is taking every reasonab1 action to expedite the licensing
- ocess, consis ith our commitment to ensure the public health and safe y Sincerely Darrell G'vEisenhut, Director ijsip of Licensing 0
of Nuclear Reactor Re nation DISTRIBUTION:
SEE NEXT PAGE.
OFFICEO DL:LB#3 DL:L D
L SURNAME HRood:jb FJ ia RL sco D
t 6/ 6/81
.681 /
81 64
.81 6
81.....
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL REC RD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
CITY OF HANFORD CALIFORNIA CITY HALL -400 N. DOUTY ST.
93230
'15 0USA Mr. Harold Denton>
Director of Office of Nuc ar Reactor Regulations U. S. Nuclear Commission WalhT on, D.C. 20555
PL VEW THE DUE DATE IMMEDI ATELY If the due date does not allow aequate time to respn'd to this ticket, you may request a revised due date -- The request must include a valid justification and be submitted through your correspondence coordinator to the NRR mail room.
Such requests for green tickets must be made within 3 days after assignment.
Requests for revision of yellow ticket due dates may be made, with justification, through the weekly WITS update.
The revised due date, if approved by PPAS, will be used to track division correspondence completion schedules.
1 RESOLUTION NO.
1742 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD SUPPORTING THE LICENSING OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3
EDISON SAN ONOFRE UNITS TWO AND THREE AND SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPING OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF ENERGY AND CON 4
TINUED COMMITMENT TO COISERVATION OF ENERGY SOURCES.
5 At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 6 Hanford duly called and held on T
?
, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
7 of said day, it was moved by Councilman NICKLAS 8
seconded by Councilman MADL L and duly carried that 9
the followiag resolution be adoptedi 10 WHEREAS, the City of Hanford is vitally concerned that the 11 economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the State of.
12 California and the citizens of the City of Hanford be maintained 13
- and, 14 WHEREAS, adequate supply of energy is critical to meeting 15 the economic and social needo of the citizens of the State of 16 California and the City of Hanford and particularly the agricultur 17 al interests in the County of Kings upon which the City of Hanford 18 is dependent while preserving the environmental gains of the past 19 decade, and 20 WHEREAS, this nation's continued overdependence on foreign 21 oil has caused major adverse economic impacts and there is a 22 probability that instability-in the Middle East will come at some 23 future time, result in the reduced supplies of oil, thereby caus 24 ing further social sa economic chaos here at home and, 25 WEREAS, there must be a strong commitment to conservation 26 of the nation's limited resources and development a suffictent and 27 secure na sources of energy here at home and, 28
&DER AS, regulatory delays in the planning and licensing of 29 need a
y fai1ities are costly to the consumer and damaging 30 t e
s.:t ad ea.:
in greater importation of foreign 31 01 32 he it
( oolved that-the City Council of the CITY ATTORNEY CITY oP HANFORD
1 City of Hanford supports the timely licensing of the San Onofre 2 Units Two and Three Nuclear Power Plants owned and operated by 3 the Southern California Edison Company and that the City Council 4 of the City of Hanford does support developing alternative forms 5 of energy such as solar, geothermal and wind and supports a continued 6 commitment to conservation of our energy sources.
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this 8 Resolution be forwarded to the Southern California Edison Company 9
by the City Clerk and to such other agencies of the state and 10 federal governments as are concerned with the matters expressed 11 in this Resolution.
12 Passed and adopted this 2 d cday of June
, 1981, 13 by the following vote:
14 AYES:
Councilman NICKLAS 15 MADILL 16 HAM 17 CRAIN 18 LAKRITZ 19 NOES:
Councilman NoNJ 20 ABSENT:.
Councilman,;
No APPROVED:
o 22 Rayoze ATTEST:
/Ciy cerk 24, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
25 COUNTY OF KINGS
)
CITY OF HANFORD
) SS 26 I, DOROTHY A. MATTOS, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do 27 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford 28 duly called and held on June 2 1981..
29 Dated:
June 2 1981.
30?
31 Ci y erk 32 CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF HANFORD