ML19351G315
| ML19351G315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1981 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351G312 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102230497 | |
| Download: ML19351G315 (1) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 0
,/
JAN 101931
.xet No. 50-367 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut Director Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
J. H. Sniezek, Director Division of Resident and Regional Reactor Inspection, IE
SUBJECT:
OTHER IS3UES RELEVANT TO RENEWAL OF BAILLY ONSTRUCTION C
PERMIT Region III has indicated in a memo from J. Keppler dated January 8,1981 that ?.here are other matters that warrant assessment by the NRC in its consideration of er. tending the Bailly Construction Permit. We support the RIII view and forward J. Kcppler's memo for your consideration. ---
This office and RIII will provide further information or assistance which NRR may desire with respect to these matters.
E. Blackwood will be the IE:HQ contact on this matter.
/ ~N 2
uo k M-> ' '
.Ac
' mesh.Sniezek,Directh vision of Resident and Regional Reactor Inspection Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
V. Stello, IE H. Denton, NRR R. C. DeYoung. IE E. Case, NRR J. G. Keppler, RIII R. F. Heishman, RIII E. Blackwood IE R. Purple, NRR R. Tedesco, NRR H. Shapar. ELD D. Lynch, NRR CONTACT:
E. B. Blackwood, IE 49-28180 81 0228 0 'M o M lo *B TM w
A\\
6 A\\J
.J L
==
e 0
UNITED ETATES
,4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION lli I
7ss ROO3tVELr ROAD C/ [
OLIN ELLYN ILLINols 60137 January 8, 1981 i
MDDMN%'M FOR: Ja=es H. Sniezek, Director Division of Resident and Regions 1 Reactor Inspection, IE FROM:
James G. Keppler, Director SU3 JECT:
RDEWAL OF BAILLY CONSTRUCTION PEP 2 FIT As you arc aware, the issue of whether or not to extend the Bailly Construction Permit is pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing.._
Board (ASLB). As we understand it. the primary matters under consideration by the ASLB relate to environmental conditions that may be caused by extension of the Construction Pemit, the ressons for construction delayer and the conpetency of the utility as evidenced by the delays.
In vicv of the fact that very little construction has taken place since the cocstruction Permit was issued in 1974, we believe other matters warrsst assessnent by the NRC in its consideration of uxtending the Pe r=it. Particularly i=portant, in our view, are the folleving:
l 1.
The Esilly facility will utilize a one-of-a-type 645 We, Mark II, BWR 5 design.
We anticipate that significant modifications will be-tequired by NRC, resulting in a substantial increase in capital -
I costs over that esti=ated during the initial Construction Permit review.
2.
The Quality Assurance Organization and Program identified in the Construction Per=it Applicstion vill require significant upgrading to meet existing utandards.
3.
The utility has only a small nurber of people with nuclear experience.
The majority of these people are currently functioning in non-nuclear positions. We believe the overall competence of the utility to.
construct and operate the facility may not match the standards which the NRC staff would expect if a utility were submitting a new l
application today.
As you know, both Chairman Ahearne and Commissionar Gilir. sky recently '
toured the Bailly aita by helicopter with Bert Davis, Bill Axcison, and myself to observe first hand the characteristics of the location from a site suitability and emergency pisnning standpoint. During these over-flights, they both asked our views concerning this particular site and' whether we thought the project should be continued.
U
e James H. Sniezek -
1/8/81 k*e expressed our view that while so=e other sites with plants in operation are worse from a population density consideratien, we did not believe it vas appropriate with today's public and political attitudes to build a new plant this close to a majo city.
We also stated that our view was based on the fact that construction vss =inir.31 and that we were not advocating shutting down plants with higher population densities.
In rasponse to direct questions we also told the Con nissioners that the age of the plant design and the espabilities of the utility raised additional concerns in our minds. Collectively all the concerns resulted in our view that the project should not continue.
We dic' not initially consider voicing any written position on 3a1117 because the issues are largely licensing considerstions and, since, if the Ccustruction Pemit were extended, Region III would not permit physic 41 construction to begin until va were satisfied that the-licensee's' - ---
quality a.:suranca organization'was~ adequate and operational. Upon further consideration of the uniqueness of the issua:
- urre u:-ding nailly and the considorations under review by the ASL3, we believe it would be appropriata for IE to reco==end that NRR assess the need to broaden the Hearing issues to include the =stters discussed in this memorandum.
We vould be pleased to provide any assistance which NRR may desira.with respect to these matters.
' James G. Kapp Director ec:
V. Stello, IE R. C. DeYoung, IE E. L. J,rdan, IE j
G 0
e e
e I
e e=- e
--e W
Mw
,m
= - - -...-
m.
".r - * - -
+
-w-
-