ML19353A382
| ML19353A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Shelby R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19353A375 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101080331 | |
| Download: ML19353A382 (4) | |
Text
_-
@ MGu c,
UNITED STATES
[.hq,g!,- $
g' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
December 22, 1980 cunus The Honorable Richard Shelby United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Shelby:
This responds to your letter of October 9, 1980 which expressed concerns regarding the Commission's progress in the review of construction 4
permit (CP) applications, the use of the NRC staff resources in responding to the requirements of Section 110 of the NRC 1980 Authorization Act, the delay in the Commissions' adjudicatory proceedings and a lack of any coherent regulatory guidance.
There are six pending construction rermit applications involving eleven plants.
The enclosed Table provides the status of the NRC licensing review, public hearings, and future licensing steps as it exists at this time.
Further definition of the projected schedules for all these plants is dependent on two major factors - first, the applicants' plans and schedules for completing submissions of needed information and the schedules for related public hearings, and, second, the impact of TMI-related requirements which must be satisfied by these pending construction permit applications.
The NRC staff is adapting the Commission's TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0660) to the pending CP applications.
Several meetings with the six CP appli-cants as an owners group have been held on this subject.
The staff issued Report NUREG-0718, " Proposed Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License" in i
August 1980.
That Report sets forth the proposed manner and extent to which the Commission's TMI-2 Action Plan would be applied to the pending CP applications prior to the issuance of a CP.
NURFG-0718 was noticed in the Federal Register on October 2,1980 as a proposed rulemaking (copy enclosed).
The comment period expired November 17, 1980.
Following evaluation of the comments received, the Commission will make a final decision on the use of this Report and any additional case-specific actions on TMI-related requirements to be implemented by applicants and the NRC staff.
Also, the associated proceedings which have been suspended pending resolution of TMI-related matters can then be reactivated.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has budgeted about 12 staff years in this fiscal year and 10 staff years in each subsequent fiscal year through 1983 to complete these six near-term CP case reviews.
These resources will be supplemented, as appropriate, from available contractual assistance funds.
The Commission currently believes that the budgeted resources are sufficient to proceed with the pending CP applications.
81010 3 o 33 ;
The Honorable Richard Shelby 2
Regarding the staff's actions in response to the Congressional directive in Section 110 of the NRC FY 1980 Authorization Act (the Bingham Amendment),
4 the Commission sent a status report on this subject to the Congress on September 30, 1980.
A copy is enclosed for your information.
In a i
noti-c cf proposed rulemaking published October 9,1980 (copy enclosed) i the.. mission proposed that operating nuclear power plants would be required to identify and justify all deviations from the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) revision scheduled to be issued in April 1981 that relate to those regulations which the Commission determines to be of particular significance to the protection of the public health and safety.
This notice of proposed rulemaking also describes the Commission's present position with respect to the requirements applicable to appli-cants for construction permits.
This includes:
1.
"All applicants for a nuclear power plant construction permit or manufacturing license for which the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report TMI Supplement is issued before January 1,1982, would be required to identify ano justify, prior to issuance of the con-struction permit or nanufacturing license, all deviations from all acceptance criteria of the May 1980 version of the SRP and from the
' Proposed Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing Licenses,' in NUREG-0718 (as l
modified after public comment)."
2.
"All applicants f.or a nuclear power plant construction permit or manufacturing license for which the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report is issued after January 1, 1982, would be required to identify and justify, prior to issuance of the construction permit or manufacturing license, all deviations from all acceptance criteria of the SRP revision scheduled to be issued in April 1981."
i Public comments were requested on both the requirements of NUREG-0718 and the requirenent to document and justify deviations from the SRP.
These proposed requirements for CP applicants are not required by l
Section 110, as noted in your October 9 letter.
Rather, the purpose of these proposea requirements is to provide documentation, during the NRC review process, of the means of compliance with all current regulations.
Taking this type of action now on CP applications would avoid the docu-mentation problem in the future that now exists for operating reactors, which is to be addressed by the special review effort mandated by i
Section 110.
Such documentation by CP applicants is not expected to impact significantly the schedule or staff manpower requirements to reach decisions on these pending applications.
i
\\
j The Honor.able Richard Shelby 3
You also expressed a concern that, lacking coherent regulatory guidance, industry cannot undertake the expenditures and effort involved in planning new facilities.
We agree and as discussed above, the Commission expects to be able to establish the set of TMI-related requirements that should be applied in the review of applications for CP's and manufacturing licenses.
In addition, the Commission has several rulemaking efforts in various stages of development that will provide specific requirements and guidance for new applicants.
Examples of such initiatives include siting criteria for future facilities and measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of accidents involving degraded core conditions. Also, upgraded acceptance criteria were recently issued for emergency response i
plans by the Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Revision 1 to NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria for Preparation and Eva'uation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Supou t ;f Nuclear Power Plants." These actions by the Commission should introduce a degree of stability in the regulatory review process thereby allowing prospective applicants to make better informed decisions.
I As indicated above, the various adjudicatory proceedings associated with the near-term CP apolications will be reactivated with respect to TMI-1 related matters, as appropriate, following receipt and review of the j
applicants' submittals of information called for by NUREG-0718, af ter final approval by the Commission.
The footnotes in the enclosed Chart summarize the status of those hearings and the issues yet to be considered i
by the respective boards.
In summary, the Commission recognizes the need to proceed with the review of pendi "P applications and the need for a firm and rational regulatory proc.
Je are working towards establishing the requirements that should be applied to these facilities based on the experience that
{
has been ga.ined from the TMI-2 accident.
l Finally, for your information, the Commission will be providing a monthly report to Congress on the status of efforts to carry out its licensing and regulatory duties including the processing of penaing construction permit applications. The status report was required by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in House Report 96-1393, regarding the Energy :"d Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 1981.
As indi-I cated in the House Report, this requirement was predicated on the following i
concerns (1) completion of high priority work necessary to incorpcrate the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident into the Commis-sion's licensin manner, and (2)g and regulatory process in an orderly and systematic initiation and completion of the necessary reports and studies so the Comn 'ssion can consider pending applications for operating licenses, construction permits and other licensing actions in accordance I
with the April 17, 1980 testimony before that Subcommittee.
4 S
l'
-,--o_.--__,
r,,,_, - _--
,,,r y
_.m m._,,-...._
,. - - - --.~
- - -. - -. ~.
The Honorable Richard Shelby 4
I trust that my comments have been responsive to your concerns.
I would be pleased to provide any additional information you may desire.
Since"eiy, R
John F. Ahearne
Enclosures:
1.
Fed. Reo,. Notice, 10/2/80 2.
Status Report 3.
Fed. Reg. Notice, 10/9/80 4.
Chart of Construction Permits a