ML19318C659
| ML19318C659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hatfield M SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318C660 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007020129 | |
| Download: ML19318C659 (4) | |
Text
'
'o,,
UNITED STATES C01'l.'Inslog s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRESPOED M CE, o
B
,E wAswmGTON, D. C. 20565 o,
.s
%,,*****/a June 5, 1980 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield United States Senate Washi.ngton, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Hatfield:
Your letter of May 12, 1980 contained six questions r.egarding NRC resource allocations for FY 1981 and FY 1982, Our reply to those specific questions is provided in the Enclosure.
Please contact me should you have any questions concerning these matters.
.Si cerely, i
j John F. Ahearne
Enclosure:
As stated 80.070g939
OUESTION.
- 1. ~In FY 81 and FY 82, how much NRC manpower will be applied to developing a post-Three Mile Island licensing basis for the six remaining construction permit applications?
2.
Who in the new Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation organization has the responsibility for developing this criteria and what is their schedule?
3.
What resources will then be applied to reviewing the responding utility submittals, writing the safety evaluation reports and appearing at the public hearings?
ANSWER.
The Office of Nucler.- Reactor Regulation is planning to submit shortly for Commission approval a proposed list of requirements from the Three Mile Island (TMI) Action Plan which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a new construction pennit (near-term construction permit (NTCP) list).
Five technical specialists from this Office have been working since March 1980 to adapt the Action Plan to the six outstanding CP allocations. The staff has met with an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) sub-committee, and has met with the full ACRS in May on this effort.
Several meetings with the six CP applicants as an owner's group have also been held.
A schedule for issuance of a CP based on the NTCP List approved by the Commission is difficult to predict at this time. This difficulty arises from two major factors.
First and foremost, two issues in the TMI Action Plan involve matters (siting and consideration of degraded core cooling conditions) which could potentially result in the need for a substantial redesign or relocation of the proposed facilities.
Second, each of the NTCP applications must complete the hearing process and the nature of the contentions which will be considered in the hearings as a result of TMI is not yet clear.
Both of these factors are heavily dependent on the scope of the TMI-related requirements, yet to be approved by the Commission, which must be met by these NTCP applicants.
Following Commission approval of the NTCP List, utilities would be expected to submit the necessary information and the corresponding safety evaluation reports would be prepared by the NRC staff. Upon issuance af the staff's safety or environmental reports, any required hearings could commence. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has allocates four professional manyears in the rest of FY 80 and fotr professit,nal manyears in FY 81 to this effort. The formulation c,f the FY 82 budget has been initiated and a similar level of effort in FY 82 is expected to be included for the pending construction permits.
QUESTION.
4.
How do these resource allocations compare with resources being applied to licens1ng operating plants?'
ANSWER.
In FY 81, four professional manyears have been allocated for CP reviews and 86 professional manyears have been allocated for operating license' (0L) reviews.
In addition, completion of pending OL reviews on a schedule consistent with their estimated construction completion dates will require additional funding to continue the Department of Ene.rgy (D0E) Laboratory Loaner program in FY 81.
The four professional manyears allocated for CP reviews should be sufficient to complete the six active CP applications pending in FY 81.
The review of these CP's has been essentially completed except for consideration of TMI matters. The larger allocation of resources to 0L reviews is required to conduct the reviews of over 40 active OL applications pending in FY 81. These OL applications are in various stages of review, the bulk of which requi e review for non-TMI as well as TMI matters. This explains the apparent disparity in the allocation of resources between CP and OL reviews.
QUESTION.
5.
How many operating license applications do you expect to process in FY 81 and FY 82?
ANSWER.
Over 40 OL reviews will be in progress in FY 81 and FY 82.
We expect to issue 12 OLs in FY 81 and 12 OLs in FY 82.
QUESTION.
6.
Since all applicants for NRC licenses have an equal right to the prompt processing of their applications, how do you explain any disparity in resources relative to the effort required as between construction permit applicants and operating licenses?
As a result of the accident at TMI, those plants that we had expected to license for operation between March 28, 1979 and the present were and have been delayed because of the need for the NRC to investigate and analyze the accident and to apply our findings to currently cperating plants.
In view of the urgency of this effort, a significant amount of our staff resources concerned with reactor licensing reviews were reassigned to the TMI-related work after the accident.
Early this year we also initiated the DOE Laboratory Loaner program under which personnel from DOE's National Laboratories assist us in the conduct of licensing reviews. The licensing review process has also been delayed to permit each pending application to be reviewed in light of the new TMI-related i.
requirements.
This has caused some delays in issuing OLs for plants which have completed construction and are ready for initial nuclear testing prior to production of electricity..There are almost 40 facilities which are expected to complete c7nstruction by 1983 and which will require
substantial NRC resources to review.
In order to assure that the licens:ng reviews are completed at or near expected construction completion dates, we have assigned 86 professional manyears to the conduct of these reviews. This amount of resources is necessary to minimize the delays in issuances of OLs and the economic penalties associated with a completed nuclear facility which is not licensed.
Because of this consideration and the fa.ct that there are only six active CP applications under review as compared to about 40 active OL applications under review, we believe that.
the disparity in resources assigned to CP and OL reviews is reasonable.
=
_