ML19290E599
| ML19290E599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Janice Owens AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290E600 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003140261 | |
| Download: ML19290E599 (1) | |
Text
!!RC PDR e* VGug%,
p UNITED STATES 4 g. g.,Y,,
,3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
3 g
f WAEHINGTON, D. C. 20555 os.,...../
FEB I 41980 Mr. Jack G. Owens 3324 Wood Dale Road Chester, Virginia 23831
Dear Mr. Owens:
Your letter of November 28, 1979, to President Carter, has been referred to me for reply.
In your letter you requested that the NRC expedite a decision on licensing North Anna Power Station, Unit 2.
I am enclosing a copy of a etter which we have transmitted to the Attorney General of the State of Virginia, which discusses the status of the operating license for North Anna Power Station, Unit 2.
I trust that the letter to the Attorney General explains the NRC position regarding the licensing of North Anna Power Station, Unit 2.
Sincerely,
/ ~ld R. Denton, Director hf Haro Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Letter to the Attorney General, State of Virginia, dated January 9, 1980 800315026(
en arc
+7 f,
UNITED STATES
' E j > v. (h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5.'
/
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g. ~ d, f, j p
JAIi e 1640 The Honorable Marshall Colemon Attorney General State of Virginia Supreme Court !!uilding 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Ilear Mr. Attorney General:
Your letter of Decenber 14, 1670 to Chairman Ahearne 'ias been referre1 to me for reply.
The General Counsel has concluder! that it is an el Nrte comunication.
(Tbis viou is not shared by a ninority of the Ce.vassioners).
Therefore, I am comenting on your letter requesting assurance that the Florth Anna Unit flo. 2 operating license application is under active review and expressing concern as to when an eperating license nay be issued for the florth Anna Unit flo. 2 station.
I would like to briefly review for you our activities since the accident at Three Mile Island Unit flo. 2 (Tf:1-2) and their relationship to the fiorth Anna Unit flo. 2 plant. At the tine of the T!:I-2 accident, a nud,cr of issues remained to he resolved in completing our review of the ':crth Anna Unit fio. 2 application. As a consequence of the T::1-2 accident, the effort of the staff was concentrated on evaluating the accident and assessing the remedial racasures to be required as our evaluation pro-gressed -- both imediate, near-term, and long-term -- at first, on operating reactors, and later, on applications under review. Ilowever, the review of the florth Anna Unit fio 2 application was not halted during this time. We have continued to work with the Virginia Electric Power
( v pany (VEPCG) within the limitations of our available rescuices to res.,1ve the issues outstanding at the time of the accident at T't!-2.
This effort has proceeded and most of these "non-T::I" related issues have raw been resolved.
Since the TMI-2 accident, the 'nC staff has been conducting an intensive review of the design and operational aspects of nuclear power plants and the emergency procedures for coping with potential accidents. The purrcsc of these efforts was to identify measures that should be taken in the short-term to reduce the likelihood of such accidents and to inprove the emergency preparedness in responding to such events.
~
f C
q o
/
c.
i T
'Q c
.2 "O
U 6
C a
no
, a alid h
The Honorable Marshall Coleman On September 27, 1979, letters were sent to all pending operating license applicants, including the Virginia Electric & Power Cvipany setting forth further requirement 3 established to date as a result of these efforts. We indicated that additional requirements would likely be developed.
In a letter dated October 25, 1979, the Virginia Electric & Power Company responded to our request of September 27, 1979. A special task force established to review responses by operating license applicants comenced a review of the submittal shortly thereaf ter, and a letter was issued November 9,1979 requesting additional informaticn and clarifying certain positions related to our requirements to expedite both VEPCO's response and our subsequent reviews. By letter dated November 26, 1979 YEPCO responded to our letter of Novenber 9,1979 and the NRC Task Force is well along with its review of the infornation. On December 19th and 20th the NDC Task Force met with VEPCn representatives at the North Anna Unit No. 2 site and discussed matters related to the VEPC0 submittal and our review. As a result of our reviev, VEPCO is responding to our remaining concerns and we will review their response proeptly upon subnission.
In addition to the above requirenents, Corrission review of the results of other investigations, including the Presidential Comission and the NRC's Special Inquiry Group, can be expected to lead to additional requirements for use in licen;ing reviews of new plants. We are in the final stages of development of an Action Plan for Comission review and approval implenent-ing recomendations of the President's Comission and other studias resulting from the TMI-2 accident. This Action Plan will include new or irproved safety objectives, the detailed criteria for their implementation and the various implementation deadlines. Our proposed schedule and process is as follows:
January 7, 1930 Heet with Advisory Cormittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcomittee to review draft Action Plan.
January 9,1980 Meet with Comissioners to continue discussion of Action Plan.
January 10, 1980 Heet with full ACRS on Action Plan.
January 21, 1980 Issue revised draft Action Plan incorporating coments as appropriate.
February 15, 1980 Subnit final draft of Action Plan (includes nodifications as necessary to address the report of the NRC Special Inquiry Group and refined NRC and industry resource estimates) to the Commission for review and approval.
As indicated in the Policy Statenent on the TMI-2 accident issued by the Comission on October 4,1979, no new licenses for nuclear power reactors will be authorized by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards or issued by the NRC staff, except af ter further order of the Connission itself.
.l*
The Honorable Marshall Coleman.
By letter of Decerber 5, l'>79, VEPCO p;oposed a special test program to be conducted at power levels no greater than 51 similar to an earlier proposal to the Comnission by TVA to be conducted at their Sequoyah facility. We are in the process of reviewing these special test programs and I hope to make a reconnendation to the Cornission concerning these proposals in February. However, as stated by Chairman Ahearne in the enclosed letter to TVA, until the Commission has completed the reviews necessary to ensure that operating reactors are adequately responding to the lessons learned from the TMI accident, only limited resources will be available for reviews associated with issuing new operating licenses.
Sincerely, e ny t;. :.. D:r.'.O Ilarold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
[ 1.,
i NUCLEAR REGULAIORY COMMISSION wumcron. o. c. acsss
.g <
l
\\...../
December 26, 1979 CMAIRMAN l
Mr. 5. David Freeman Chairman of the Board Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Dear Chairman Freeman:
Your December 3,1979 letter to Dr. Hendrie requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission consider pemitting TVA to conduct certain activities including fuel loading, 2ero power physics testing, special testing and operator training at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit I at no greater than five percent porer.
Your proposal is ar interesting one.
While a distinction can be nade between the risk to public health and safety from a special testing program at low po er and operation at full power, further discussions between our respective staffs will be required to explore the details of your proposed program.
However, until the Com.ission has completed the reviews necessary to ensure that operating reactors are adequately responding to the lessons learned from the TM1 accident, only limited resources will be availa' e for reviews associated with issuing new operating licenses.
Subject to this resource constraint, I have asked the staff to review your proposal and to make a recomendation to the Com. mission in this regard.
The final decision on this matter will, of course, reside with the Comission.
I would also like to note that Comissioners Kennedy and Hendrie prefer that the NRC staff proceed promptly in this matter, particularly in light of the ACR5's strong endorsement of your proposal.
They believe that the necessary resources can and should be made available under these circumstances, inc erely, s
ohn F. Ahearne
,,