ML19350D348
| ML19350D348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Summer, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Recasha Mitchell SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104150299 | |
| Download: ML19350D348 (3) | |
Text
3 DOCKET NUMBER DOCKET NUMSER 52 crag PROD. &)Rtt;T 1
fB00,(llTIL FAC.N dSb---- / 9 5 1T;* ' ^
I j
.;TATEs g gs, 8
C1 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- g g Q j, j 4y, j
},
g
' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
)D,;,n 141931
- _
t-
+ * * " *
,,,.uu o w e
- , i s
e d
C""""
kJ. 51 'd31
.\\
%./
t usune 9
Rudolph Mitche Cbafhnan APR 131981 >
The Public Service Comission h
otra ef m g 1/l P. O. Drawer 11649
\\
Doche:in & Senice 8' M Columbia, South Carolina 29211
\\,
p N
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letters of March 9,1981 to John F. Ahearne who at that time was serving as Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
In those letters you cited our January 30, 1981 report to the U. S. House of Representatives Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development, Comittee on Appropriations and the further delays in licensing schedules for the applica-tions for McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit I and Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The following is a discussion of the actions being taken by the NRC to improve licensing schedules as discussed by Chairman Hendrie in a recent letter to the Honorable Tom Sevill, Chainnan, Subcomittee on Energy and Appropriations, U. S. House of Representatives.
The basic problem we are confronting is the backlog of licensing decisions for new plants ready to come on line.
We believe the problem is a direct consequence of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI) accident and of the nationally accepted need to carefully reexamine the way in which the NRC and the nuclear industry fulfill their shared responsibility for safety.
As a consequence of that accident we were forced to slow our licensing process for more than a year, while staff resources were diverted to develop and evaluate additional require-ments based on lessons learned from TMI. This substartial licensing pause occurred while plant construction continued.
Due to the need for applicants to address TMI requirements and the need to adjudicate these new requirements in some cases, our licensing approval process is now on the critical path for operation of these plants.
We believe that considerable reductions in the delays are possible.
To that end the Comission has already made it clear to its staff that expedited licens-ing decisions are a high priority in this agency. The Comission 'is also investigating changes which could be made to reduce the length of the licensing process in general, in order to benefit all potentially affected plants.
Time savings for the plants scheduled for cunpletion in 1981 and 1982 can be gained by increasing the efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent Comission and Appeals Board review. The hearing process itself consists of a prehearing phase, an evidentiary hearing phase, and a post-hearing phase during which the Licensing Board writes its decision. While it appears that there may be opportunities for time savings in the hearing process, speeding Dsol s
IfD 81041 sos M N
. Rudolph Mitchell up proceedings to minimize possible economic consequences must be ba against the need to make administrative decisions wh judicial review.
Within that constraint, the NRC legal staff and the Licensing and Appeal Boa believe that time savings could be realized during the pre-hearing and post-A review of the actual length of our most recent operating licensing hearings indicated that the time period between issuance of the hearing phases.
supplemental staff safety evaluation report and initial Licensing Board d l
These hearings were conducted under somewhat relaxed time schedules since the hearings were seneduled to be com averages 18 months.
plant completion.10 months by tightening the periods allowed for each part of The process and by providing firmer time management of the entire process.
Comision is publishing for comment on an expedited schedule, proposedImp changes to NRC rules which could accomplish this.
changes could eliminate most of the impact for those plants with hearings scheduled to be completed in late 1981 and 1982 Present Comission review practices could also be modified to save time.
The suspension of the imediate effectiveness rule resulted in the following an -initial Licensing Board decision approving plant operation is automatically stayed for 60 days for Appeal Board review review procedure:
Nominally, the review adds an a further 20 days for Comission review.
additional three months to the process.
While the Comission has agreed tentatively to shorten this review, it has Two alternatives not yet decided upon the best mechanism to accomplish this.
Under the first approach the Comission would decide whether or not to stay the Licensing Board's decision within 10 days of the decisio are available.
full to grant a low power if cense and within 30 days of a decision to grant a The The Appeal Board would not participate in this review.
i nonnal Appeal Board review process and consideration of ancillary stay m power license.
initial would proceed in parallel and if the Appeal Board found that the For a plant decision should be reversed, it could order a plant to shut down.
i i
lly whose Licensing Board approval was not reversec (m in beginning operation if the Comission acted qdekly.
l The other alternative is to make the initial Licensing B
- Thus, effectiveness review, as was the case prior to the TMI-2 accident.
ately effective.
l t the Comission would not play a direct role in determining whether a p an can be initially permitted to operate and would have to rely on the ability ht to give clear guidance to the Boards, but would have the opportu down a plant upon review. The time savings for plants on the hearing schedule be changed by rulemaking.
- ~
,. ~
~
w 3-Rudolph Mitchell would be a nominal three months. The Comission has decided to seek public coment on both alternatives through publication of a proposed rule.
Reducing review time, by either alternative, would be of particular benefit to the McGuire application which is well into the hearing process.
For those applications most severely impacted, such as McGuire, another possibility is direct Commission intervention, if a detailed case-by-case review indicates that such intervention would be helpful.
While the Comission is considering this as a possibility, no decision has yet been reached.
However, the Comission is now reviewing these cases with this alternative in stind.
Sincerely.
Orig 9ul Weed 4 R. R. Dentse ;
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.6 e
ae,_
'%h l
~..
-~..,.
%e 1
l l
^*
==-h
- =... -
m-4.,
-m.--
-w 4-p---
'-m
- -