ML16340C009
| ML16340C009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lagomarsino R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C010 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109240206 | |
| Download: ML16340C009 (8) | |
Text
~8 RE0y
+4 0
rP Cy C0
/p +**++
CHAIRMAN O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 21, 1981 I
The Honorable Robert J.
Lagomarsino United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Dear Congressman Lagomarsino:
J'j, C)
This responds to your letter. of June 9, 1981, inqusrsng into the status of the proceedings regarding the Diablo Canyon. nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, California, and the impact upon those proceedings of recent regulatory and proposed legislative modifications of the adminis-trative procedures for obtaining an operating license.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8E) submitted an application for a full-power operating license in September 1973 well before the comple-.
tion of construction.
Extensive technical reviews and public hearings followed.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) issued a favorable Partial Initial Decision in June 1978 addressing environmental issues.
Public hearings regarding safety issues were
'ompleted in February 1979 and the operating license record was closed.
A second Partial Initial Decision was issued in September 1979 addressing
- seismic, physical security, and aircraft accident contentions.
On March 28, 1979, the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident occurred.
As you know, intensive staff review of the accident and its implications for,other power reactors diverted agency resources from the processing of license applications and, along with independent reviews by panels established both by the President and the tIRC, produced a series of sub-stantive and procedural recommendations for enhancing the protection of public health and safety.
A. number of these recommendations have been incor'porated into HRC regulations.
Many remain under active consideration.
Both the diversion of staff resource's and the adoption of additional safety-related requirements, some of which must be complied with before a license is granted, may have delayed the issuance of operating licenses for several plants, including Diablo Canyon, for varying lengths of time.
The principal factor prolonging NRC's review of the Diablo Canyon operating license is the close scrutiny being applied to the seismic safety issues necessitated by the discovery of the Hosgri fault just 2I; miles offshore from the plant location.
A favorable Licensing Board
.ruling on seismic design was issued in September 1979.
Joint Intervenors appealed this decision and the Atomic Safety and Licensing'ppeal Board (Appeal Board) held additional hearings in early 1980.
The Appeal Board then reopened the seismic hearings in June 1980 to consider additional evidence on the 1979 Imperial Yalley earthquake.
The final se'ismic c
asom40ios 8>oa~as PDR ADOCK 05000275 PDR ~'
Ill A
C 4
l 1
C
V
The Honorable Robert J.
Lagomarsino hearings were held in October 1980.
On June;16; 1981, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon plant adequately protects public health and safety.
Joint Intervenors and Governor. Brown have petitioned the Commission to review the Appeal Board's decision on the seismic issues.
This matter is currently pending before the Commission.
Construction of Unit 1 was essentially complete in early'981.
Operation of the plant is currently deferred pending an Appeal Board decision on physical security matters expected in late August.
On June 14,
- 1980, PGRE submitted an application for a, fuel-loading and low-power testing license.
In August 1980 and March 1981, the NRC staff issued supplements to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report which addressed concerns related to fuel loading and low-power-testing arising from the TMI accident'.
Hearings. on, these
- issues, sought by Intervenors and Governor Brown, were concluded on May 22, 1981.
A favorable Licensing Board decision on the fuel-loading and low-power license application was issued on July 17, 1981.
If the Appeal Board rules favorably on the physical security issue, the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764, will determine whether to authorize the requested operations.
With regard to the full-power license, in May 1979 Intervenors filed a Motion to Reopen the environmental and emergency planning record on the ground. that the TMI accident rendered the record,.inadequate.
In April 1981 the NRC staff issued Supplements to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report, focusing on-TMI-related issues relevant to full-power operation.
A Prehearing Conference was conducted recently to determine which, if any, of the primarily TMI-related issues disputed by.Intervenor's and Governor Brown require additional consideration.
A public hearing will be scheduled,.if necessary, providing time in the interim for the parties to pursue discovery and related matters.'he Licensing Board decision on full power will also be subject to Commission review under 10 CFR 2.764.
A Commission. decision on full-power operation is not expected before January 1982.
Recent modifications of the NRC review process have been undertaken to reduce the delays experienced as a result of TMI." Foremost among the modifications relevant to the Diablo Canyon proceedings is the amendment of Appendix B to Part 2 of the Commission's,Rules of Practice, now removed to 10 CFR 2.764.
As noted in the Federal
~Re ister on May 28,
- 1981, (46 Fed.
~Re
. 28627),
the new procedure ss intended to save from 50 to 70 days in the issuance of approved operating licenses.
.The previous procedures provided for an 80-day review period during which a Licensing Board decision in favor of granting a license was reviewed by the Appeal Board (goal - 60 days) and then by the Commission (goal - 20 days) for purposes of determining. whether to allow the Licensing Board decision authorizing plant operation to become effective.
The Honorable Robert J.
Lagomarsino The new review procedures, which.will.be applicable to Diablo Canyon, eliminate the 60-day Appeal Board review but retain the Commission review to determine whether to grant effectiveness.
The Commission
'eview is intended to be completed within 10 days of low-power decisions and 30 days of full-power decisions.
These time limits are established as a goal, however, and may be exceeded if necessary.
The usual Appeal Board review of the substance of licensing decisions and the Commission's rule permitting parties to request stays remain in effect.
The plant could be'operating during this Appeal Board review unless it is decided that operation should be stayed.
The Commission believes that the elimination of the automatic Appeal Board stay-review in no way compromises the protection of public health and safety which is the primary goal of Commission review procedures.
Further, the Commission's review will be every bit as rigorous as it would have been under the former Appendix.B procedures.
The Commission has also taken action to streamline the hearing process in ways. which should expedite the Diablo Canyon full-power proceeding.
Rules were adopted on. June -8, 1981 (46 Fed.
~Re
. 30328) which amend th' NRC's adjudicatory procedures in several respects:
Licensing Boards are authorized to make oral rulings on written motions during the course of a prehearing conference or a hearing.
Parties to proceedings are precluded from filing responses to objections to a prehearing order unless the Licensing Board so directs.
The schedule for filing proposed findings of fact and con-.
clusions of law has been revised.
Summary disposition motions may now be filed at any time during the course of the proceedings.
These specific amendments and a broad policy statement (46 Fed.
Rece.
- 28533, May 27, 1981) providing guidance for more.efficient management of the hearing process should result in a somewhat expedited full-power hearing and decision.
With regard,to the legislative proposals concerning the authorization of low-power or full-power operation of nuclear plants before compl'etion of safety hearings, the Diablo Canyon proceeding has now progressed to the point that such legislation would most likely have no effect on low-power operations.
The proposed legislation could precede the Commission's
The Honorable Rober t J.
Lagomarsino full-power decision by several months.
- However, even if some form of.
interim operating legislation is enacted, the Commission will not exercise its authority unless and until it is convinced that there is reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public.
The potential time savings at Diablo Canyon made possible by the proposed legislation remain uncertain.
I hope this-has been responsive to your request.
If. you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, unzio a
dino
. ~