ML18026A031
| ML18026A031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1975 |
| From: | Rooney F US HR (House of Representatives) |
| To: | Anders W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18026A031 (6) | |
Text
',,* crepe r
grad S. Rooney (Pa.)
CONTROL NUMBER8471 DATE OF D)Cog FILE CATION ACTION COMPlfTQHEADLINE
>, TO
.'ChairEIan illnders ACTION PROCESSING DATES Acknowledged Interim Reply F Inal PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
i'., DESCRIPTION Origina I Q Copy C3 Other
- ". Encl cy'tr ka John T. Rauf5aan, Pennsylvania Pmer 6 tight>
- concernias delay in starg up of NPS and the effect. on the I, supply of reteach fuel for the suEIgueh@ma plane REMARKS REFERRED TO F
~; Emsoa f/action DATE IS NOTIFICATION TO THE JCAE RECOMMENDED?
Cys:
OQS I'stss trsctrsi Files) ie 201 treR (2)
N 3tty 59-388 Giambusso 8hnpar DIRECTOR OF REGULATION COMMUNICATIONS'CONTROL
~>, sent POR, Form HQ-32 (1-73)
USAEC
N r
75; 25' NRC. LOGGINGDATE
'::I'" -
INNMMSECRETARIAT"
'TO: Q COMMISSIONER OATS:~I 0 GEN MANAGER"'" "r0 GEN COUNSEL '
INFO, SERVICES DIR.~EGULATIOQ'.'.", 0 PLAN.SE ANAL,'l SECRETARY exec.
Dir." for 0 erations g'ng lT INcoMINGF red 8 .Roon e
House'f Representatives
~ '
I airman n ers DATE:
SUILIECT:
lr U
PREPARE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE OF:
=,
.>r 0
GM, DR, GC, PA, IS, SECY '"',."
0 SIGNATURE BLOCK'OMITTED.
XX 'xec. Dir.:for' erations
'0 'LEASE RETURN ORIGINALWITH RESPONSE
, 0 FOR DIRECT REPLY SEND COPY OF REPI.Y TO:
U sEcY MAILFAclLITYI3)
Suspense Date:
~5 7Q 0
'HAIRMAN
. 0 COMMISSIONERS 0
SECRETARY 0
FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION 0
FOR INFORMATION 0
FOR RECOMMENDATION C
of incomino to OCA 8
DSSS.
Note:
ee ec ticket >75-2519 Re
. Yatron to An ers, 20, Kauffman to Anders 8-75-7, Deuster to n ers answered b
EDO o
FOR THE COMMISSION:
4 WHEN SEPARATED FROM ENCLOSURES HANDLETHIS.DOCUMENT AS
,5) 84 ~~ACTION SLIP
@RED 'P. ROONEY MEI45CR op coNoRess ISTN DIsnocr, PsMMsn.vAisA eSOI RAT>>vsM Ho>>ss Ornos Bono>><><<riot<<. D.C 20515 405 EAsr 4TN Bnazr BsnI<<sNCM. PsMMsn.vAIsA 18015 Posr Orncs B>>II4I>><>seen.vAMIA 18101 KoiltteesS ot tfje cHIIIteb States Joule ot 38,eyredenfatibad EHa5fjfmghe, Q.tie:.
20515 March 3l",'975 COMMITTSSI INTERSTATEAND FOREIGN COMMERCE SI/SCOMMITTXSI coMMuNICAnoNsANO poweR MERCHANT MARINE ANO PISHERIES svsooM MIrrsssI MKRCMANTMARINe plsN ANOwItnure coNSSRvATION ANoTNe ENYIRoNNSNT COAST OVARO ANO NAVIOATION Mr. William A. Anders Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear i~1-. Cnaixman:
COrl
~ I I ai C II I am writing in regard to the enclosed corresponaence from Mir. John T. Kauffman of Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Power 6 Light Company is facing some aifficulties with the supply of nuclear fuel for 'their Susquehanna plant and I would greatly appreciate any comments, or information you may be able to provide pertaining to this inquiry.
With kind personal regards, I am Sincer ly yours, Fr d B. Rooney, M.C.
FBR: jimb Enclosure 847"
, 'j TWO NORTH NINTII STOT. AL!ENTOWN. PA. IRIOL PHOEBE l2 2I 5)SI JOK!RI T. KAVFFMAnI vice Presit'.ent, System Power 6 Engineering 82 I.5343 March 26, 1975 Mr. William A. Anders, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l'I
Dear Mr. Chairman:
A It has. been brought to my attention by Mr. Ralph Deuster, President of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
(NFS) that two major events have taken place recently which may seriously delay start-up of the NFS reprocessing plant and, in turn, have a serious detrimental. effect on the 'supply of reload fuel for our Susquehanna Plant.
These events are the letter of Mr. Edson Case of the NRC relating to the possibility that the NFS final environmental statement may not be issued until the GESMO action is completed and the letter by Mr. R.
W. Peterson stating that the Council on Environmental Quality believes that the GESMO Draft Impact Statement does not meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
We are not in a position to discuss the merits of these two actions, but we feel the issues should be attacked on an urgent basis and with considera-tion of the total impact on the U.S. Energy Supply. 'e have already seen NFS'rojected operating date delayed by a year since we began negotiations with them last September (culminating in a contract signed in January).
That delay, plus those which the above two letters might provoke, could prevent us from obtaining hoped for plutonium purchases in 1982 or recycle of our own plutonium in 1984.
We would then need additional U308 and enrichment with both the prices and sources uncertain.
A negative ruling on plutonium recycle would also considerably increase our needs for U308 even though the need for additional enrichment would then be satisfied by the contingency plan in our enrichment contracts.
These problems are recognized as common in the industry just as it is recognized that reasonable caution in" the utilization of plutonium is necessary.
'We admit that readily acceptable solutions are hard to find and we assume you are already using all due effort to schedule the hearings and make the judgments necessary to get plutonium recycle approved and reprocessing plants licensed under proper conditions.
As one additional suggestion, we offer the concept of providing for plutonium safeguards by an adequate armed force both for transportation PEN:ISYLVANIA POWER 6
LIGHT COMPANY
i~li. William A. Anders H<rch 26, 1975 idge 2
and for guarding the reprocessing plants and fabrication facilities.
Right now, a large enough force could be. dedicated so that it would be
-immediately clear to all that it would be'adequate.
As time went on,-
more detailed studies and hearings could perhaps justify a major reduction in the force.
Heanwhile, the plants could be in operation and the resultant electrical energy available.
h As another suggestion, we believe that xeprocessing plants could be licensed without waiting for the GEST~10 decision.
Although this would result in production of plutonium which could partially frustrate a negative decision on plutonium recycle, the plutonium would then be located only in a few, very easy to guard, plants.
Also, a negative GESHO decision should be regarded as only a temporary situation because better safeguards technology or future acute need for plutonium could provide the impetus to reverse such a negative decision.
It is, of would not paved for amount of
, ahead.
course, possible that without plutonium recycle some reprocessors want to'o ahead with their plans.
However, the way should be reprocessing licenses on their own merits so that a significant time could be saved if the reprocessor does decide to go 1
Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Very truly yours, John T. Kauffman Vice President System Power,& Engineering
~~~ha,.i"< ) %'
'e\\