ML18030A216

Informs That Util Believes Unit 1 Const Will Be Completed by 1981 & NRC Schedule Will Result in Unnecessary Costs. Urges Commission Action to Assure Complete Plants Do Not Remain Idle While Waiting for Ol.Svc List Encl

ML18030A216
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	02/12/1981
From:	Campbell R PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8102270615
Download: ML18030A216 (5)

Text

DOCKET NUMhER

->~+I'r!LFAC.5.@fQ+$ $ ,

Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company Two rect ~ Allentown, PA 18101 Robert K. Campbell President 215 / 770-5947

<asti I Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0%ca of tht.

Denting 4

~>

gag~

Nashington, D. C. 20555 gL

Dear Chairman Ahearne:

The most recent "NRR Monthly Status Report to Congress",

transmitted by your letter of January 30, 1981 to U. S. Repre-sentative Tom Bevi3.1, lists Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, as one of the nuclear power plants whose operation, the NRC Staff now expects will be delayed by the NRC licensing process. According to the Status Report, the Staff now estimates that construction of Unit 1'ill be completed by March 1982, but that licensing will not be completed until November 1982.

Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company believes that construction of Unit 1 will be completed in 1981 and that the NRC licensing schedule will result in unnecessary costs to the Company and its customers.

The Company filed its operating license application on April 10, 1978. A notice of opportunity for hearing was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 1978. In June, 1979, the NRC Staff issued its'raft environmental impact statement. Since that time the licensing process has stagnated. The Staff held up publi-cation of the final environmental impact statement (originally scheduled for October 1979) because the Commission was considering a change in its policy of discussing "Class 9" accidents in NEPA statements. As of today, the Staff has still not issued the final environmental impact statement.. Indeed, the Staff now plans to issue it without the accident analysis section (which would be incorporated subsequently), a step which could ~ip,,been.,3:aken..a year ago, 'Until the final environmental impact stp4qjneat-;;'f'-'",'"-,,"'...:.'>., "-

. released, a hearing on environmental issues cannot even>Qe~=;1',-

scheduled.

Other steps >>'hich the Company has taken to move the licensing proceeding along have met with little success. The Com-mission, the Appeal Boards, and the Licensing B~rds have consistently pointed to the Commission's summary disposition-procedure of 10 CFR 52.749 as a way of simplifying issues, eliminating contentions

>>hich do not have substantive merit, and otherwise expediting the .

licensing proceeding. On August 27, 1980, the Company filed its

• 82022ppg/5'

~ P i t<

I 7

gljglVIQI" The Honorable John F. Ahearne February 12, 1981 first motion for summary disposition. Subsequent motions on additional issues were filed on October 27, 1980, November 6, 1980, and December 5, 1980. As of today, the Licensing Board has > et to rule on any of these, I

An additional concern is the Licensing-.Board's avail-ability to hold hearings. It is our understanding that the Cnairman of the Licensing Board in this proceeding presides over at least five other licensing proceedings: Cincinnati Gas 0'

H h d l . ( h Project, Units an 2, Doc et No. STN 50-4 8 OL,and 50-499 OL; Dairvland Power Coo erative (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor),

oc .et No. ~ -4 FTOL Proceeding); 'Consumers Power Co. (hfidland Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-~ OM, -3~ i>l, 50-~29 OL, and 50-350 OL; and Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2) Docket o. -3 1. everal of these proceedings will be at the hearing stage simultaneously with Susquehanna. Ne understand that extended hearings for several of these proceedings are scheduled during the next several months.

There is no reason to think that the other Licensing Board members have smaller caseloads. Thus, the Susquehanna proceeding will be competing for the time of its Licensing Board with other proceedings which are also under considerable time pressure. And, even apart from the difficulty of finding the t'me for an evidentiary hearing, the Licensing Board's otner obligations virtually assure that it will take a very long time after any hearings are complete before the decision will be forthcoming.

In view of this situation, we would urge that the Commission take'expeditious action to assure that the NRC's resources are being properly allocated so that plants like Susquehanna are not forced to sit idle awaiting NRC licensing.

Very truly yours,

'I Robert . Campbe The Honorable Tom Bevill The Honorable Susan M. Shanaman

cc: Service List Secretary of the Ccmnission~

~c~

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Mr. Glen 0. Bright Dr, Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Mr. Thcmas J. Halligan his. Colleen Marsh Jessica H. Laverty, Esq.

Karin W. Carter, Esq.

Thomas M. Gerusky Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal Director