ML20003F510

Informs Sc Public Svc Commission That NRC Is Attempting to Reduce Licensing Process Delays,In Response to s. TMI-2 Accident Caused Licensing Decision Backlog

ML20003F510
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Summer
Issue date:	03/31/1981
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Recasha Mitchell SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8104210641
Download: ML20003F510 (4)

Text

.

s

.).

7 50- M%

y t{

. R MAR 311981 m

6 u,s, gg81 w n_3 w

C Rudnloh ?titchell, Chairman k

N" ' 1 The Public Service Comissior.

O P. O. Drawer 11649

/.

Colu-bia, South arolina 29211

• I'od

Dear Fr. 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 Commission.

In those letters you cited cur January 30, 1981 report to the U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee 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 uuclear Station, Unit 1.

The following is a discussion of the actions being taken by the NRC to imprese licensino schedules as discussed by Chairman Hendrie in a recent letter to the Honorable Tom Devill, Chairman, Subecmnittee on Energy and Appropriaticns, U. S. House of Representatives.

The basic probler we are confronting is the backlog of licensino decisions for new plants ready to come en line. We believe the problem is a direct consequence of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TPI) accident and of the nationally accepted need to carefully rmanine the way in which the NRC and the nuclear industry fulfill their shared >wsponsibility for safety. As a consecuence of that accident we were forced to slow nur lir.ensing process for Fore than a year, while staff resources were diverted to develop and evaluate additional require-rents based on lessons 1 earned from THI. This substantial Ifcensing cause occurred while plant construction continued. Due to the need for applicants to address T?il requirements and the need to adjudicate these new recuirerents in, sore cases, our licensino aporoval process is nov an the critical path for operation of these plants.

We believe that considerable reductions in the delays are possible. To that end the Commission 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.

l Tine savings for the plants scheduled for ccripletion in 1981 and 1982 can be gained by increasing the efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent l

Commission and Appeals Board review. The hearing process itself consists of a l

prehearing phase, an evidentiary hearing phase, and a post-hearing phase I

during which the Licensing Board writes its decision. While it appears that there r.ay be opportunities for tire savings in the hearing process, speedina l

1

.. m l

Navf) 4 l

suouW l

^

c mc

= : c: = -

Rudolph Hitchell up proceedings to minimize possible economic consequences nust be balanced against the need to make administrative decisions which represent fair cpportunity for public participation and which are sound and will survive judicial review.

Within that constraint, the NRC legal staff and the Licensing and Appeal Boards believe that tine savings could be realized during the pre-hearing and post-tearing phases. A review of the actual length of our most recent operating licensing hearings indicated that the time period between issuance of the supplenental staff safety evaluation report and initial Licensing Board decisions averages 18 months. These hearings were conducted under somewhat relaxed tine scnedules since the hearings were scheduled to be completed well before plant completion. We believe we can cocpress the average time to approximately 10 months by tightening the periods allowed for each part of the pre-hearing process and by providing firner time management of the entire process. The Ccmision is publishing for cocrant en an expedited schedule, proposed changes to NRC rules which could accomplish this.

Implementation of these changes could eliminate most of the impact for those plants with hearings scheduled to be conpleted in late 1981 and 1982.

Present Ccmission review practices could also be modified to save tice.

The suspension of the icraediate effectiveness rule resulted in the following review procedure:

an initial Licensing Board decision approving plant operation is automatically stayed for 60 days for Appeal Board review, and for a further 20 days for Ccmission review. Nominally, the review adds an additional three nonths to the process.

While the Comission has agreed tentatively to shorten this review, it has not yet decided upon the best mechanism to accomplish this. Two alternatives are available.

Under the first approach the Ccmission would decide whether or not to stay the Licensing Board's decision within 10 days of the decision to grant a low power license and witnin 30 days of a decision to grant a full pcwer license. The Appeal Board wculd not participate in this review. The l

normal Appeal Board review process and consideration of ancillary stay motions l

would proceed in parallel and if the Appeal Board found that the initial cecision should be reversed, it could order a plant to shut down. For a plant whose Licensing Board approval was not reversed (most plants have historically fallen into this category) a nominal savings of two months could be achieved i

l in beginning operation if the Comission acted quickly.

The other alternative is to make the initial Licensing Board decision imedi-l ately effective. Appeal Board and Comission review would consist of a post-effectiveness review, as was the case prior to the TMI-2 accident. Thus, the Comission would not play a direct role in determining whether a plant can be initially permitted to operate and would have to rely on the ability to give clear guidance to the Boards, but wculd have the opportunity to shut down a plant upon review. This alternative would require that the regulations be changed by rulemaking. The time savings for plants on the hearing schedule re,g) l 5.a%4s;)

. : i C FIlCI A '

.9 E C ! E ', C b : '

l

Rudolph ?titchell would be a norainal three conths. The Comission has decided to seek public cement on both alternatives througn publication of a proposed rule. Reducing review tire, b

• either alternative, would be of particular benefit to the ficGuire application which is well into the hearing peccess.

Fc those app 1tcations most severely itipacted, such as ficGuire, another possibility is direct Comission intervention, if a detailed case-by-case review indicates that such intervention would be helpful. While the Comissicn is considering this as a possibility, no decir. ion has yet been reached. However, the Corvnissicn is now reviewing these cases with this alternative in mind.

Sincerely,

@st 3%nd bt H.R. Dents ;

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

/r Ny i

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR\\DI iRIBUT20V'

:o DL:LB*(/

DL:

O E L D,,,,

DL:AD:Q DL N

NRR

""- O W e

h.

ASchwqncer RTedesco.

dei-

..u t.

E

1. e.

3 HDe son 3/.f3 /81

", > 3/ a

/81 3/ K /81 3/

/81 3/ ^ 5 /81 3/g/81 3/ y /81 c.= = : = x n = = = = = = =,

__=-. _ _ _ _

b-y i

DISTRIBUTION:

4 NRC POR Local PDR LBf2 File i

EDO Reading HDenton i

ECase 1

DEisenhut j

RPurple Attorney, OELD t

i OCA (3)

Shapar PPAS Hanauer Ross Murley Snyder i

Vollmer GErtter(d10271)

Stavanaugh EHughes Tedesco's Secy.

ASchwencer WKane MService j

RLazo, ASLB IE (3) i SECY Mail Facility (3) (#81-0348) l I

r i

i t

h

- w L

{

3.....c y

+

Y 9

j

<t)-

=: =: -. ;-,

..e e,:,= : : : c c c, s w

FEDCW:,

ACTICN CCNTWCL 0ATES CONTWCL NO i

Ru'dolph Mitehell 10271 ecwat=ceouNc The Public Service Comission acxNewLeoGuzNTi cATE Cr ooCuuENT 5 9 +. ne snu*h ca mlina iNTrasu 8seLv 3/9/81 70-PREPAFE FCR S3GNATURE Chairman Ahearne

N^ ' " E *'Y I

besArawAN FILE LCCATiCN C sxecuTive =iaccTea CTHER O ESCRIPT:CN C LETTEa CwEuc C agpcaT C oTmga SPECIAL INSTRUCT!CNS CR REMARKS Two ltrs one urging expediting licensing process of South Carolina Electric &

Gas Co. - V. C. Sumer Nuclear Station &

other expediting licensing process for Duke Power Co. - McGuire St& tion CLASSIFIED CATA CCCLMENT/CC8v NO. l lCLAS$4 FICA?lCNi NLV8Ea cF 8 AGES l

CATEGCav

!acs?AL asses av Nc.I C Ns C no C rae grev-31-0318 & 81-0350 I AS$iGNED TO:

(

CATE INFCRMATICN ACU* LNG LEG A L* PEVIEW C FINAL C C0pv i

Pon*an. NQQ I 1/l7/01 Sha par.

AS31GNEO TC:

(

OATE NC LEGAL OSaECTICNS J.

ROSS

• N c*a a

• c*iE Case' I

NOTIFY:

4*

qu;1, C t=c A win a cea ats sa' 7

N It/1e/as Den;,en

'e yde" e

covuesTS. NCTIFY:

L l

i g*

ppu.

.n ext.

s

([M r7 i + =

3.

Hanaue*

TCAE sCTtFiCATrCN AECOMMENCE' I u

' v Es C NoI saCgag:::

executive cinEcTen Fca c'EaATicNS co uor asuovs ruis ceav PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

'91-0348 -

NNN

% cy.3/13/31 s._

PsAC SECAETAAf AT 70:

O Comm.m.oner Care XXN E sec. Ow.Cour.

O c.,tco m w

O con, t..on O so...to, O maw.e Ale

,3 O s.cr. tar, O

O i -. 4 o.,e, Oe-..

riWCo lpn ?ll;Cne a, LT.T State of Scutn Carolina Public Service Cecrtissicn To 3bea me 3/9/SI

o.,

sue,ect avaadi*" **e liC*"Si"O UFOC955 So Car El ac Cc-V. C. S'Jr'er C

h= pare eswv for w ot-O cw O com O e ee. oc. c sei... secy, ii.,.

O s oc eti Oa.n. eor me O ro, ct,,,-

For a roonese actaan O sor,,sorm oon

~ ~ '

T-

e:'s C'!. 4 f fe D3 C.....<

decke*

Time

.w, i L ~

f

.s u-

-=

01iI1e

,,, a co.,in,i

• Sand *,.e tsa coe= et ree, w sery cariseenames one macares erwien

,G Y~

f ACTtCN sLs9 e

P00R ORIGINAL

s STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

p. O. ORAeER 11443 COLLuel A. SCUTM C ARCLIN A 29211 RUDCLMs a4TCMELL. Cchemsseoseen q

jgg) q SECCo*C 39TatCT The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairman

!,'nited States Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission Washington, D. C.

20555 RE:

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company - V. C. Summer Nuclear Station

Dear Chairman Ahearne:

We are distressed by your January 30, 1981 report to the United Sta tes House Appropria tions Subecnmittee on Energy and Water Development, on the status of licensing of nuclear power reactors. Your report announces dramatic delays in licensing schedules for a number of nuclear plants including South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No, l.

According to your projected schedule, Summer will not be licensed until June 1982, six months later san you projected in your December Report.

The cost escalatiens resulting frcm this delay are sure to be immense. We are informed that they may appecach one hundred twenty-five million dollars ($125,0C0,000) for a six month delay. This is nearly twenty-one million dollars

($21,000,000) pe r month. While this Agency does not regulate the rates of the Public Sem/ ice Authority (Santee Ccoper),

one-third owner of the Sumer Plant, we do regulate Scuth Carolina Electric and Gas Cemcany's rates. Also, we are not insensitive to the s nemic burden even to Santee Cooper's customers. We earnestly strive to keep rates reasonable in South Carolina, it is most difficult under the best of circumstances.

It becomes even more difficult and f rus tra ting when this type of non-productive expense is foisted upon our utilities and their ratepayers.

This Commission certainly coes not advocate a lessening of administrative viger in the effort to insure safety in

I

~

The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairman March 4,1981 Page Two nuclear operations. We do, however, urge serious consideration of the very real economic burdens posed by incraased licensing delays which in this case seem to have little or nothing to do with new safety or environmental issues. We urge the Comission to direct their Staff to get on with the task of license review and issuance, to establish licensing as a high priority as it shculd be, and to mobilize the manpower necessary to reduce these delays.

Yours very truly,

,,.<[

7,~

s w Rudolph Mitchell Chairman RM:ngg cc: The Honorable James B. Edwards Secret 3ry of Energy 1

,v.,-

e

_r..,,

--