ML17207A739
| ML17207A739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1979 |
| From: | Clusen R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17207A738 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160451 | |
| Download: ML17207A739 (22) | |
Text
4 s ~
a t
e eAtse
- -nclosure 1
Department of EnergY Washington, D.C. 20585 NOV 2 9 ]979 Mr. Lee V. Gossip xecutive Directo= for Operations Nuclear Regulato~
Commission 7~'ashington, D. C.
20.555
Dear Hr. Gossick:
The enclosed Cong essional inquiry was refer=ec o the Department of Energy for comment, As the subjec-of the inquiry concerns a speci=ic licensed nuc ea power plant, it is mo"e appropriate tha" the Ns clear regulatory Commission provide the response.
Sincerely, Ru"h C.
Cluseu Assistant Sec tarz
=o= Environment Enclosure R -e-.= ED~
s
~
~
~ ~
~.e
'e eMe~
RECE1VED NOV 5 $79 OAN)EL'. MICA, V..C.
~ one 4330 J ila,c St.
P'.:- ch. Gdns,, pla
~3'o.
0"-o"e= -0e 1979.
Dan Mica 512 Cannon Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
2053.5.
Dear Mr. Fiica,
I am quite concerned about
=he r.ucl a" ~laat Ln St. Iucie. I feel'that we are ris~~
.he hea~t:. of thousands of people, by operat~~
inc nuclear plant.
According to the articles I have ead, it sems clear to me that we are total:y r ly~~ on toms of machinery and a crew of operators to k e~ us out of danger. It seems that the ope ators
~~e completely "confident" that'no major problem ~'ll oc"u=.
I would appreciate it if you conc,
.e 1,
e how everyone involved in operating this nasl=a=
p ezt can be so confident that no major prob'"s could occur, when the damages that could occur M some h~ does, are so extremely great. Th~ You 7e~
Viuch.
Sm'e=e=y,
,'7
~
5 ofs)eg~
~
P l Q~ gf r
n-.m D.C Er. Richard L. %right Congressional ~ison DOE Forrestal Build~g, RM 73180-Washington Nov.
5 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE:
DOE-Scime-f Sir:
The attached communicztioa is seat for your consideration. Pleas: in-vestigate the statements contained therein and forward me the ne"essary information for reply.
Yours truly,
~
~
~
~
Enclosure 3
JAN 2 5 ]g7g INSURING SAFE DESIGN OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The Nuclear Regulatory Cormission (HRC) conducts a detailed review of all nuclear power plant applications to insure that components, systems
'nd structures important to safety are designed, fabricated,
- erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
These reviews are conducted by some 50 different technical disciplines organized into 30 sections in 17 functional branches within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The safety portion of the application for a nuclear power plant is organized in accordance with a Regulatory Guide, the Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports, which describes the informational needs of the NRC staff in reviewing these applications.
The conduct of the safety review is in accordance with the Standard Review Plan which describes in some detail how the safety review of Light Mater Reactor
..(LWR) applications is accomplished and which criteria are applied in'he acceptance of systems, components and structures important to safety.
The criteria. used in the review process include HRC Regulations and Regulatory Guides, and industry standards developed in conjunction with the HRC.
I When a nuclear power plant application is. submitted, it is first subjected to a preliminary review to determine whether it contains sufficient infor-mation to satisfy the Commission requir ements for a detailed review. If the application is not sufficiently complete, the staff makes specific requests for additional information.
The application is formally docketed only if it meets certain minimum acceptance criteria.
In addition, when the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) is submitted, a substantive review and inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program covering design and procurement is conducted.
Guides for the preparation of the documents, detailing the kind of information needed, have been developed by the staff to aid applicants in preparing acceptable applications.
The staff reviews a construction permit application to determine among other thimgs, if the public health and s'afety wi'll be fully protected.
If any portion of the application is considered to be inadequate, the staff requests the applicant to make'ppropriate modifications or provide
- needed additional information.
The application is reviewed to determine that the plant design is con-sistent with NRC rules and regulations.
Design methods and procedures of calculations are examined to establish their validity.
Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by the staff to establish the validity of the applicant's design and to determine that the applicant has conducted his analysis and evaluation in sufficient, depth and breadth to'support required findings in respect to safety.
~ I JAN 2 5 1979 With regard to accident evaluation, there are specific design features which must be an integral part of nuclear'o~ r plants and whose design basis assumes that there is a release from the reactor pressure vessel of the fission products contained in the nuclear core.
This assumption is made on a deterministic basis (i.e.,
no rational mechanism is assumed
.to. be required to obtain this release) so as tc irpose extremely con-servative design conditions on the engineered safety measures which are physically incorporated in the power plant to reit=gate the consequences of any postulated accident.
However, this assumption implies that there is a complete failure of the safety systems which are specifically de-
~
signed to prevent this release of fission products from the reactor core.
This method of designing safety systems to witt"stand postulated worst case accidents, then assuming a failure of these systems and designing physically separate backup systems, which are civerse in principal,-is known as "defense-in-depth."
Some of the engineered safety systems which are typically incorporated.
into the plant design and which mitigate the consequences of the postu-lated accident are the primary containment, the secondary containment,
'ontainment
- sprays, and charcoal'filters.
Prior
=-o licensing a nuclear power plant, the NRC staff must be satisfied that the individual doses received by the public at specified distances
-ro". the facility following the design basis accident (i.e., the fission prod ct release from the reactor pres'sure vessel) are within the guidel~ne values contained in 10 CFR Part.l'00.'hese specified distances are identified as the radius of the exclusion area and the radius of th low populatic'.i zone.
Typical values of these distances are about 1/2 mile for the exclusion area and about 3 to 5 miles for the low popula ion zone.
These distances vary with plant site and are dependent oh the power level of a facility, the engineered safety features, and -he pertinent meteorological conditions of the plant site.
In addition to the safety review of nuclear power plant applications, the NRC technical staff conducts evaluations of po-en=ial safety problems that may apply to many reactors of a given design t..pe.
The detailed review and independent analyses of emergency core cooi ing system (ECCS) per-formance, anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), and containment pressure are examples of this type of generic study.
The staff also conducts engineering audits of reactor vendors and architect-engineer design calculations and procedures to assure conformance with safety de-sign practice.
The safety review of problems of operating reactors are another means of insuring safe design by applying the findings reached in these reviews to the licensing process
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
3 The licensing process includes the consideration of programs proposed by an applicant for a construction permit to verify plant design fea-tures and to confirm design margins.
Data obtained from research and development programs on particular facilities and from the Commission s
safety research program are factored into these licensing reviews.
When the review and evaluation of the application progresses to the point that the staff concludes that acceptable criteria, preliminary design information and financial information are documented in the application, a Safety Evaluation Report is prepared.
This report represents a
summary of the review and evaluation of the application by the staff relative to the angicipated effect of the proposed facility on the public health and safety.
When the construction of the nuclear facility has progressed to the point where final design information and plans for operation are ready, the applicant submits the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) in support of an application for an operating license.
The FSAR sets forth the pertinent details on the final design of the facil.ity, including final containment design, design of the nuclear core, and waste handling system.
The FSAR also supplies plans for operation and procedures for coping with emergencies.
Again, the staff makes a detailed review of the information.
Amendments to the application and reports may be submitted from time to time.
The staff again prepares a Safety Eval-uation Report (re the operating license) as in the construction permit stage.
Each license for operation of a nuclear reactor contains Technical Specifications, which set forth the particular safety and environmental protection measures to be imposed upon the facility and the conditions of its operation'hat are to be met in order to assure protection of the health and safety of the public and of the surrounding environment.
Through its inspection and enforcement
- program, the NRC maintains sur-veillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its lifetime to assure compliance with Commission regulations for the pro-tection of public health and safety and the environment.
k
THE REACTOR LICENSING PROCESS ll Enclosure 4
v~ls 4 9 Q/g The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for, among other
- things, the licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants.
Before a nuclear power plant can be built at a particular site, the applicant must obtain a construction permit from the NRC.
As a major part of the application for a construction permit, an applicant must file a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR).
This document presents the design criteria and preliminary design information for the proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site.
The report also discusses various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features which will be provided to prevent accidents or, if they should
- occur, to mitigate their effects on both the public and the facility s employees.
In addition,. the applicant must submit a comprehensive Environmental Report providing a basis for the evaluation of the enVironmental impact of the proposed plant.
- Further, information must be submitted by the applicant for use by the Attorney General and the NRC staff in their reviews of the antitrust aspects of the proposed plant.
An applicant for a construction permit for a nuclear power plant may tender the required information in three parts.
One part is accompanied by the Environmental Report (ER) and site suitability information and another part by the PSAR.
Tendering of the first part may precede the tendering of the other by no longer than six (6) months.
Whichever of the above parts is tendered first must also include the fee nd other general and financial information.
The third part, consisting of antitrust information, is tendered 9-36 months prior to the other information in order for the Attorney General and the NRC staff to begin the.aiititrust review.
Some time during the period that the applicant is preparing its application for a construction permit, usually about 6-12 months prior to tendering, the NRC staff holds a general introductory meeting in the area of the proposed site in order to familiarize the public with the safety and environmental aspects of the proposed application, including the planned location and type of plant, the regulatory process, and the provisions for public participation in the licensing process.'dditional public meetings of this kind, that is, those which are conducted specifically for the convenience of public observation and participation, are held during the course of the reactor licensing process.
When an application is submitted, it'is first subjected to an acceptance review by the NRC staff to determine whether it contains sufficient infor-mation to satisfy the Commission requirements for a detailed review.
If the application is not sufficiently complete, the staff makes specific
4esss 4 y jwlg
~
~
requests for additional information.
Tne applica.ion is formally acceoted by HRC only if it meets certain minimum acceptance criteria.
In adcit-,'on, when the PSAR is submitted, a substa~tive review nd inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program, "overing d sign and procurement, is c'onducted.
Guides for the preparation of the documents have been developed by the HRC Staff to aid applicants in preparing acceptable applications.
As soon as an application for a cons-ru"tion permit is received by H2C, copies are placed in the NRC Public Docunent Room. 's soon as the ER or PSAR or early site information is received, copies are also placed in Public Document Rooms local to the proposed site.
Copies of all future correspondence and documents relating to the application are placed in these locations and are available to every me-.ber of the public.
Also, a press release announcing receipt of i=he application is issued by the HRC.
Upon docketing (acceptance) of the applicant's application for a con-struction permit, copies're sent to Federal,
- State, and local officials and a notice of its receipt is pub'li hed in the Federal i~le ister.
The application is reviewed to deterrrine that the plant design is consistent with HRC requirements.
De:sign methods and procedures of calculations are examined to establish their validity.
Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by th staff to establish the validity of th~ applicant's design and to determine that the applicant has conducted his analysis and evaluation in sufficient depth and breadth to support required findings with respect to safety.
During the staff's review, the applicant is required to provide such additional information as is needed tn complete the evaluation.
The principal features of the staff's review can be sumoarized as follows:
l.
A review is made of the population density and use characteristics of the site environs, and the physic=-1 characteristics of the
- site, including seismology, m teorology, geology and hydrology, to determine that these characteristics have been eva'equated adequately and have been given appropriate consideration in the plant design, and that the site characteristics are in accordance with the siting criteria (10 CFR Part 100), taking into consideration the design of the facility including the engineered sa-.ety features provided.
2.
A review is performed of the preliminary facility design, and of proposed programs for fabrication. construction and testing of the plant structures,
- systems, and components important to safety to determine that they are in accord with tiRC requirements and that any departures from these requirements have been identified and justified.
a I
I
- ~
P
?
'3 Evaluations are made of the anticipated response of :h r actor to various postualted operating transients and to a bro=d spectrum of hypothetical acciderts The potential consequences of th se hypothetical accidents are then evaluated conservatively to deter.iine that the calculated potential offsite doses that might result, in the very unlikely event of their occurrence, would not exceed the NRC guidelines'or site acceptability.
4.
A review is made of the applicant's proposed plans for th conduct of plant operations including the organizational str~cture, the technical qualifications of operating and technical support personnel, the measures taken for industrial security, and the planning for
'mergency actions to be taken in the unlikely event of an accident that might affect th general public.
An important aspect of this review includes an assessment of the applicant's proposed programs for quality assurance and quality control to assure compliance with the Comnission s requirements.
These reviews form the b sis for determining whether the applicant'is technically qualified to op rate the plant and whether it has established effective organizations and plans. for safe operation of the plant.
5.
Evaluations are made of the design of the proposed systems provided for control of the radiological effluents from the plant to determine that these systems can control the release of radioactive wastes from the plan( within the limits specified by HRC requ'.re=.ents and that the applicant will operate the plant in sucn a runner as to reduce radioactive releases to levels that are as lo~ as is reasonably achievable.
This review is conducted by members of the NRC staff.and its consultants over a period of about one to two years.
The staff and applicant interact frequently during the course of the review in working type meetings.
At these meetings information is exchanged, problems are discussod and resolved and staff positions are clarified.
Intervenors and other int rested members of the public are generally invited to staff-applicant m.etings as observers.
The review process includes the consideration of program-proposed by an applicant for a construction permit to verify plant d sign features and to confirm design margins.
The review process includes consideration of basic research and development programs necessary to assure the resolution of safety questions associated with safety features or components.
The applicant must identify any research and development work ihat,will be
~ conducted to confirm the adequacy or to resolve any safety questions associated with the design of a particular facility, along with a'chedule for completion of that research and developrent work.
All such safety questions must be resolved prior to operation of he facility.
After completion of consturction, nuclear power plants are subJe"t o operating
~
license procedures and requi rements.
Data obtained'from r se rch and development programs on particular facilities and from t~e Ccrmission's safety research program are factored into these licensin
. eviews.
~ ~
When'he review and evaluation of the application progresses to the point
'hat the staff concludes that acceptable criteria, preliminary design
- information and financial information are documented adequately in the application, a Safety Evaluation Report is prepared.
This report represents a
summary of the review and evaluation of the application by the staff relative to the anticipated effect of the proposed facility on the public health and safety.
The Advisory Comoittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),'an independent statutory coomittee established to provide advice to the HRC on reactor
- safety, reviews each application for a construction permit for a nuclear power plant.
The ACRS is composed of a maximum of fifteen members who, though not HRC employees, are appointed by the hRC for terms of
'four years each.
The members are experienced, technically trained individuals selected from various t'echnical disciplines, having applicable experience in industry, research activities, and in the academic area.
The ACRS also makes use.of consultants in specialized technical disciplines.
As soon as an application for a construction permit is docketed, copies of the PSAR are provided to the ACRS.
Each application is assigned to an ACRS subcomnittee, usually made up of four to five ACRS members.
During the course of the review by the staff, the ACRS is kept informed of the staff's requests for additional information from the applicant and of meetings
- held, so that the subcomnittee is aware of any developments that may warrant a change in the plant.
In those cases where the plant is a "standard design" and the site appears generally acceptable, the subcoamittee review does not begin until the staff has nea"ly completed its detailed review of all the safety-related features of the plant.
Where new or modified concepts or special site considerations are involved, the ACRS subcommittee begins its fonaal review earlier in the process, selecting appropriate stages in the staff review to begin a series of meetings with the applicant and staff.
Hormally, before the full Comnittee considers a project, the staff provides its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for th Comnittee's information.
This staff report and the report of the ACRS subcommittee form the basis for Committee consideration of a project.
Special attention is given to those items which are of particular safety significance for the reactor involved and any new or advanced features proposed by the applicant.
The full Comnittee meets at least once with the staff and with the applicant to discuss the application.
These meetings are open to the public.
When the Comnittee has completed its review, its report is submitted to the NRC in the form of a letter to the Chairman, which is made public.
The staff prepares one or more supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report to address the safety issues raised by the ACrS in its report and to include any other information made available since issuance of the original Safety Evaluation Report.
~ r-
~'
~, ~ ~
<m v ~,
~
. Either concurrently with or separately from the radiological safety
- review, an environmental review is performed by the staff and its consultants to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the proposed plant, as well as to provide comparisons between the benefits to be derived and the possible risk to the environrent.
After completion of this review, a Draft Environmental State", ent (DES), containing conclusions on environmental
- matters, is issued.
The DES is circulated
>or review and comments by the appropriate
.=ederal, State and local agencies as well as by private individuals and organizations.
After receipt of all comments and resolution of any outstanding
- issues, a final Environmental Statement (FES) is.issued and also is made public.
The SER and its supplements and the FES constitute the staf,'s primary evidence at the
.subsequent public hearings.
.The law requires that a public hearing be held before a construction permit may be issued for a nuclear. power plant.
Soon after an application is docketed the NRC issues a notice of the hearing which will be held after completion of the NRC staff safety and environmental reviews.
In addition, the hearing is noticed in several newspapers in the vicinity of the proposed plant and a public announcerent is issued by the NRC.
Opportunity is afforded for members of the public to participate in the hearing.
Hembers of the public may submit ~ritten statements to the licensing board to be entered into the hearing record, they may appear to give direct statements at the hearing, or they ray petition for leave to intervene as full parties in the hearing.
At an early stage in the review process, potential intervenors are invited to meet informally and discuss with the staff their concerns with respect to the proposed fac i 1 ity.
The public hearing is conducted by a three-rember Atomic Safety and Licensing Board appointed from the NRC's Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
The board is composed of one lawyer, who acts as chair-
- person, and two technically qualified persons.
The hearing may be a combined safety and environmental hearing or, in the case of a split application, separate hearings.
The board considers all the evidence which has been presented, together with fincings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties and issues an initial decision.
If the initial decision regarding NEPA and safety ratters is favorable, a con-struction permit is issued to the applicant by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The board's initial decision is subject to review by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and the Cormission.
HRC regulations provide that the Director o Nuclear Reactor Regulation may authorize limited construction work to be carried out prior to the issuance of the construction permit.
This authorization is known as a Limited Work Authorization (LWA). 'he regulations provide for the authorization of two types of work.
One type may authorize site preparation work, installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation, construction of service facilities and certain o'her construction not subject to the quality assurance requirem n.s.
The second type of LWA may authorize the installation of structural oundations.
An'LWA may be granted only after the licens'ng board has made all of the
~ ~
JAN 2 5 1979 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) findings required by the Cormission's regulations for the issuance of a construction permit and has determined that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed site is a suitable location for a nuclear power reactor of the general size and type proposed from a radiological health and safety standpoint.
The second type may be granted if, in addition to the findings described
- above, the hearing board determines that there are no unresolved safety issues relating to the work to be authorized.
The law requires that antitrust aspects of a nuclear power plant license application must be considered in the licensing process.
The antitrust information submitted by the applicant is sent to the Attorney General for advice on whether activities under the proposed license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
Upon receipt, the Attorney General's advice is promptly published and opportunity is provided for members of the public to raise antitrust issues.
An antitrust hearing may be held based on the recomnendation of the Attorney General or on the petition of an interes'ted party.
In any event, the NRC must make a finding on antitrust matters.
Antitrust hearings are held separately from hearings on environmental and safety matters.-
Mhen the construction of the nuclear plant has, progressed to the point where final design information and plans for operation are ready, the applicant submits.the Final Safety Analysis Report in support of an application for an'perating license.
The FSAR sets forth the pertinent details on the final design of the facility, including final containment
- design, design of the nuclear core, and waste handling system.
The FSAR also provides plans for operation and procedures for coping with emergencies Again the staff makes a detailed review of the information.
Amendments to the application and reports may.be submitted from time to time.
The staff again prepares a Safety Evaluation Report (re the operating license)
- and, as during the construction permit stage, the ACRS makes an independent evaluation and presents its advice to the Conmission.
A public hearing is not mandatory with respect to an operating license
- happ']ication.
- However, soon after acceptance for review of the operating 'licen application, the Coomission publishes notice that it is considering issuance of the license.
The notice provides that any person whose interest might be affected by the proceeding may petition the NRC for a hearing.
If a public hearing is held, the same decision process described for the construction permit hearing is applicable.
Each license for operation of a nuclear reactor contains Technical
=-Specifications, which set forth the particular safety and environmental protection measures to be imposed upon the plant, and the conditions of its operation that are to be met in order to assure protection of the health and safety of the public and of the surrounding environment.
se
Through its inspection and enforcement program, the hRC maintains surveillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its lifetime to assure comp1iance with Conmission regu1ations for the
'protection of public health and safety and the environment.
Enc1osure 5
UwlTED STATES N UCLEAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 FACT SHEET REVISED INSPECTION PROGRAM FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY The Current Ins ection Pro ram The U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspects all commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.
NRC requires utilities and their contractors to establish systems for assuring that power plants are built and operated safely.
The purpose of NRC inspections is "to verify that utilities (licensees) and their contractors are properly fulfilling these responsibilities.
When licensees do not fulfilltheir obligations, NRC takes appropriate enforcement action.
Inspectors
.are stationed at NRC headquarters
'and at five regional offices.
They are experienced in such specialities as nuclear engineering, health physics, plant construction, and physical security.
Inspectors regularly visit commercial nuclear power plants under construction and in operation.
There are many licensee and contractor people involved in quality assurance work and NRC does not attempt to duplicate all of their work; instead, it selectively samples the work to be sure the safety programs are operating properly.
Revised Ins ection Pro ram The current NRC inspection program was carefully derived over more than fifteen years and is based upon proven indus-trial techniques.
However, there have been some criticisms of the current program.
For example, some people believe that NRC inspectors spend too much time reviewing paperwork and not enough time actually observing work in progress.
- Also, because the inspectors are stationed in the regional offices, they spend considerable time traveling to and from sites.
For the past few years, NRC has been studying ways to revise its inspection program in response to these criticisms.
NRC instituted a pilot program in which two NRC inspectors were stationed in the vicinity of power plants in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin.
The pilot program was successful.
The Commission has approved a Revised Inspection Program
>>hich is based on some of the lessons learned from the pilot program but which also has several other features.
The revised program consists of the following elements:
1.
Resident Ins ec'tors.
Inspectors will be stationed on sate at operating power plants and at plants in the latt r stages of construction.
Some inspectors will still be located in regional offices; however, they will be primarily highly qualified specialists.
By the end of this, fiscal year, inspectors will be stationed at 20 reactor sites (see the attached list) and in the vicinity of several fuel facilities.
The current goal is to man approximately 90 sites by 1981.
I 2.
Mor'e Dire'c't'In's'ct'i'on'sn'd'bse'rvations b
NRC ns ectors.
t oug t e inspectors wall stroll spend some o t eir time reviewing, records, they wi'll spen'd significantly more time performing tests or observing the tests and operations of licensees.
- 3. 'er'formance'
'r'a'i's'al.
NRC will spend more time revxewarg, crom a national perspective, the perfor-mance oi licensees and the-effectiveness of the inspection program.
This will include special quantitative analysis by a cadre of highly qualified inspectors who wi'll independently review licensee's.
programs and who wi'll look for ways to improve NRC's inspection'rogram.
4.
- I'm ro'ved 'Car'e'ereve'I'o ment.
This effort includes zmprovec trains,ng or NRC inspectors and improved management of the NRC inspection force.
For example, inspectors wi'll receive more training together with rigorous written and. oral examinations and their job assignments will be regularly changed to broaden their experience and careers.
Bene'fit's of th'e Revi'sedIns ec't'i'on Pro
'r'am
~
~
~ ~
The Revised Inspection Program holds promise of signifi-cantly greater e=fectiveness at little additional cost.
The time NRC inspectors spend on a reactor site will be tripled.
Greater on-site :ime means more time for direct measurements and observation by inspectors and greater inspector visibility.
- Thus, NRC will p ace less reliance on licensee reports.
On-site inspectors vill provide more prompt and effective NRC response to inci-ents.
Also, because the inspectors will have improved knowled=e of the power plants, their inspection efficiency shoulc be much higher.
The program may also mean earlier correction of licensee weaknesses and a more uniform and objective YR< inspection program.
~
~
I
PLANTS FOR 16iICH RESIDENT, INSPECTORS WILL BE ASSIGNED BY OCTOBER 1, 1978 Salem Nuclear Generating
- Station, Salem, NJ Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant, Peach
- Bottom, PA Indian Point Nuclear Station, Indian P'oint, NY Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Station, Naterford, CT Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
- Berwick, PA Surry Power Station, Gravel Neck, VA North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Mineral, VA Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant,
- Decatur, AL Oconee Nuclear Station,
- Seneca, SC Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, Baxley, GA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, TN D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant,
- Bridgman, MI (one of pilot plants for resident inspection)
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, IL Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Midland, MI Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant, Red Ning, MN Arkansas Nuclear Power Station, Russellville, AR Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, TX Trojan Nuclear Plant, Prescott, OR San Onofre Nuclear Generating
- Station, San
- Clemente, CA Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, San Luis Obispo, CA I
Nuclear Fuel manufacturing facilities at Apollo, Leechburg, PA and Cheswick, PA (one inspector for all three) and at Erwin, TN
~'
~ ~
~
~
0 i +0
,it a
i ii
FROM:
2>y. iaeM4~, -":)ca TO:
44K L'~fr*rra4 m iIF-iles:"'P9 ACTION CONTROL DATES FI MAL R E PLY F ILE LOCATION COMPL DEADLINE
)pig,~/g$
ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY'ONTROL NO.07954 DATE OF DOCUMENT
)l/~i'i9 PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Q CHAIRMAN QXEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OTHER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER f.Cf'pÃ>> MAL+~~~ $C'fsaC CQXACl%$V~~ Mf641t'f
~~ Sa+ i.~C'fR plow~~
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS/
DOCUMENT/COPY NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY Q
NSI QRD Q FRD ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATIONROUTING LEGALREVIEW Q
FINAL P
COPY 4vvfrE 4~4 (m~~~AFkP 5."N'>>w 1>>r+~v gee ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EDO ADMINE CORRES BR EXT.
COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT; JCAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED:,
Q YES NO NRC FORM 232
{11>>75)
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NOT REit/IOI/E THIS COPY
~
f
~
CA
.9)
Enc1osure 1
Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 NOV 29 ]g79 Mr. Lee V.,Gossick Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr,
Gossick:
The enclosed Congressional inquiry was referred to the Department of Energy for comment.
As the subject of the inquiry concerns a specific licensed nuclear power plant, it is more appropriate 'that the 'Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide the response.
Sincerely, Ru C, Clusen Assistant Secretary for Environment Enclosure
IP 4 I
'.ll~ aj g7gg.+P~
c.~ nt P~~<><~es gAL 2oszs Rrighr aison ng.
RM alga:::
)
tv a D C
~ ~ Richard L.'ongressional Li DOE Forrestal BuQ di h'asbing t.on No@.
197 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE:
DOE-Scine-f Sir:
The attached communication is sent for your consideration.
Please in-vestigate the statements contained there>n and forward me the necessary information for reply.
Yours truly, 4
RECEIVED NOV 5t979 OAXIEI A. MICA,.M.C.-
Simone Scme 4330 Lilac St.
Plm
>ch
- Gdns, F
~
3glvo.
October 10, 1979.
Dan Mica
$ 12 Cannon Bldg.
Nashington, D.C.
20515.
Dear Kr. Yiica,
I am quite concerned about the nuclear plant in St. Lucie. I feel: that we are risking the health of thousands of people, by operating the nuclear plant.
According to the articles I have read, it seems clear to me that we are total.y relying on tons o+
machinery and a crew of operators to keep us out of danger. lt seems that the operators are completely "con ident" that no major problem will occur.
T would appreciate it if you could tell me how eve yone involved in operating this nuclear plant can be so confident that no major problems could occur, when the damages that could occur if something
- does, are so extremely great.
Thank You Very Yiuch.
~
I Sincerely, pic-.."7 / ~+err +
4$XQQ