ML20003F774
| ML20003F774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Hammerschmidt HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104230565 | |
| Download: ML20003F774 (3) | |
Text
1;HN Plut. HAww nscHMioT DOC. MET f:'J!* IR co" "-8 8 t= o**=.
- -^ "
PR O D. L U'. l ' FA....*.
- "u*a.".".w"r*a^r*i C r
MClwPS ADQMCMs Congregg of tfje IHnitch fptates
^1"L -
^~~~
WASMt..GrON ADopuSSS:
wATestmeacumCEA Jpouse of Erpresentatibes 8' a ~- -
v,m
..ms,,,
Waasessuevue. D.C. NatS
~ '"""'
EEasti:tgtmt, D.C. 20515 E -- -..v.iu. so.-=
- "L'"^.'5*' " ^" '
@ l!"-
.mo.cu.racamas me moews
[\\
April 1, 1981
- co==- on
- sine t,
+
D, GNe, 37 # D Jcseph Hendrie, Chai= nan f5 f*3[ R/
lbclear Regulate.*/ C3:r.issicn h !j 4d'#'p 1717 E Street N.W.
9 i
Washi.wton, D.C.
20555 b
- ) ear Mr. Hendrie:
/WgW Officials of Arkansas Pcwer and Light Ca:pany have rece:ely cen-tacted :ne to express certain cancerns rengarddag the review and licens-ing proced=es of the priear Regulate"f h4==W which I would like to share with you.
As indicated in the attached letter there is sme fear that there will be sig. 4#imt delays in the licensing g&wedures which will be extrenely cestly to the taxpayer. While rec gr ing the i.:;crta:re of d
ensuring safety, it is also i.;:crtant that the required procedres be ca=ded cut in an efficient and ti.ely ranner and AP&L suggests that addi'4 mal e:phasis should be placed en this aspect to prevent the e g.se of the projected delays.
l I wocid appreciare yc= review cf these concerns and a re;crt en l
the sitratica as scen as pessible.
With 'd.nd regarfs, r
Sincerely, R NY.--
-4 LTCEN PAI:L EhW Member of Congress
/"~L JPF/ ssp J
I/ g 2
N\\
0c0%
te.s :.
,D APR 171981 r's ::e=-
O.wdrfC D,c)3 S
e ne ann y
- ~, t, t 01 10: M 4
(40 s.-
4
.//
~
810423o565 y
l
,U Dtt;CIU'.*'IR @.h }r--
PROD. & UTIL FAC.
AAKANSAS POWEA & LIGHT COMPANY SUITE 290CAHE ARST NATIONAL BUILDING /P O. BOX 551/LnTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203/t501) 37'c4015 March 26, 1981 o
JERRY L MAULDEN Pressoen:&
Chef Execumve Offcer 2
c00%
9
'. " ~
USHM APR 171981 * $
The Honorable John Paul Haninerschmidt
- e. g.., D
- 22-ig 2160 Rayburn House Office Building 1
Washington, D. C.
20515 D:- *
//
4
Dear John Paul:
1 am most concerned with recent licensing status reports made to Congress by the NRC. The reports reveal that significant licensing delays are in store for some eleven nuclear plants which will be completed and ready for operation in 1981 and 1982. To the extent that a plant is completed and ready to operate but for a delay in the issuance of its license, equivalent power must be generated by other means or purchased elsewhere. Additional costs associated with such alternate generation or purchase can range from five hundred thousand to one million dollars per day of license delay, depending on the size and location of each plant. This is a tremendous social cost to be borne by ratepayers due to a Federal agency's inaction.
Both units at Arkansas Nuclear One are licensed and operating but each unit is subject to a more or less continuing license review by the NRC.
This is particularly true with regard to restart after a refueling cycle.
I'm concerned that NRC staff delays in licensing new plants will inherently involve delays in the staff's other license review work.
If this happens Arkansas ratepayers will also incur additional generation and purchased power costs which they shouldn't have to incur.
I accept the fact that the TMI incident detracted from the NRC's licensing work, and I also support the NRC's addressing every legiti-mate safety issue to the maximum extent it deems necessary in the public interest.
My policy at APEL is that we must place maximum emphasis on the safety of nuclear plant design, construction, and operation for numerous good reasons -- not the least of which is that l
it is clearly in our own best interests to do so or, stated conversely, foolish of us not to do so. Where I hrve difficulty is in accepting that TMI alone accounts for che kind of delays in the NRC licensing process which are now surfacing.
MEMBER MCOLE SOUTH t.tTLITIES SYSTEM l
Page Two March 26, 1981 The licensing status reports to Congress reveal that less than 200 of the NRC's 3,200 employees are assigned to licensing activities, and tnat many experienced licensing reviewers are presently engaged in nonlicensing activity.
These statistics tend to point toward NRC's problem being more one of poor management of resources and manpower.
If this is the case, then it is a problem which can be solved with proper direction from the Administration and the Congress.
The electric power industry in the past has consistently supported an NRC budget sufficient for the agency to fully and timely perform its primary functions and certainly the industry will continue such support in the future.
It is the industry's position that the licensing review process is a primary function equal to the safety insurance function and that it is important for each function to be performed in a timely manner.
I hope you agree with this position; and, certainly, anything you can do to alleviate the present problem at the NRC will be most appreciated by AP&L and its ratepayers.
Thank you for your consideration of my views on this matter.
Si. rely yours, 1
erry.aulden JM:bjr cc:
Mr. Charles Steel Mr. William Cavanaugh i
l l
l l
r v
- ~
,--. -