ML20003G123
| ML20003G123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Campbell C HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G112 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104280316 | |
| Download: ML20003G123 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
' Qit?
q jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
o o E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
Q**&]
April 10,1981 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Carroll Campbell United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 i
Dear Congressman Campbell:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your letter of February 19, 1981 concerning the licensing schedule for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Plant.
The Commission shares your concerns about licensing delays, not only for the Summer Plant, but for all plants that are being affected by delays in the licensing process.
During the past month, the Commission and its staff have spent considerable time in reviewing the licensing schedules for these plants and have undertaken various approaches to shorten them wherever possible.
For those plants nearest completion, the primary problem is the projected length of the hearing process and subsequent Commission review. At present, an operating license is not issued until the Appeals Board and the Commission
)
l review the Licensing Board decision.
This review process takes about three months.
We are publishing proposed changes to our rules which will shorten this time by two or three months. This savings would be applicable to all impacted plants.
We also believe we can compress the licensing schedule from an average of 18 months to approximately 10 months by tightening the time allowed for each part of the process and by providing firmer time management.
In March, the Commission published for coment proposed rule changes which would help to accomplish this.
In addition, we intend to issue a policy statement providing guidance to the Licensing Boards on conducting proceedings so as to expedite l
the process.
l For plants due to be completed in 1983 and beyond, the major action which would eliminate potential delay is early completion of staff reviews. Staff I
proposals to expedite staff reviews include resumed hiring, mandatory overtime, reallocation of existing resources and transfer of some scheduled projects from the licensing office, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to other NRC offices.
Trese changes will also help to reduce licensing delays in 1981 and 1982, although the exact time savings depend upon how quickly hiring, internal personnel transfers and shifts in ongoing projects can be accomplished.
On March 18, 1981, the Commission submitted proposed legislation to Congress, which would allow it to authorize interim reactor operation for fuel loading and low-power operating and testing before the completion of a hearing. Such interim operation would save at least two months and, where the low power testing revealed a need for repairs or modifications, could save substantially more time. This proposed authority would expire at the end of 1983 thereby assuring that this adjustment to our licensing requirements would be temporary and confined to those plants which have been most directly affected by the Commission's post-TMI action.
Any assistance that the delegation may be able to provide to assure early passage of the proposed legislation would be j
greatly appreciated.
l 8104280 %
The Honorable Carroll Campbell In our January 30, 1981 report to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, the projected schedule for the Sumer Plant indicated that the plant would be ccmpleted in October 1981 and that the licensing process could take until June 1982 to complete.
We continue to believe that the plant will not be completed earlier than October 1981.
Since issuing the January report, we have issued the Summer Safety Evaluation Report 1
(SER) on February 6, met with the ACRS subcommittee on February 26-27 and again on March 11, and with the full ACRS Committee on March 13. As a result of intensified efforts by our.egal staff and cooperative discussions with the participants, the hearing schedule may be shortened to reflect a final NRC decision as early as flarch 1982.
There may still be some items in the hearing schedule that can be adjusted, possibly resulting in an even shorter schedule.
One matter not considered above, which could have an impact on the operating date for this facility,.is an entitrust petition now pending before the Commis-sion.
In early 1979 the Central Electric Power Cooperative petitioned the Commission to find that "significant changes" have occurred since the last antitrust review of the application by the NRC and the Department of Justice.
Such a finding is a statutory requirement to initiate an antitrust review at the operating license stage.
In June 1980 the Commission issued an intermediate decision which established criteria, discussed the ultimate issues, and asked for comments by the parties and the Department of Justice and for the assistance of that Department with respect to our decision on one of the criteria.
The Commission has since also solicited comments on the effect of certain f
agreements between petitioner and one of the applicants on the requested finding.
A decision is expected soon.
An affirmative decision would require a statutory 180-day review by the Depart-ment of Justice culminating in a published opinion.
Subsequent to such an opinion, any party with an interest could request a hearing on antitrust contentions.
While current law requires that an antitrust hearing be completed prior to issuance of an operating license, an exception exists where all parties agree to a post licensing review.
In this case the petitioner for the significant changes finding has indicated agreement to post licensing review; therefore, we would not expect any delay from an affirmative finding, although in other circumstances such a hearing could delay by well over one year the i
l issuance of an operating license.
i l
There remains a great deal of war k to do prior to issuance of the operating license for Summer.
The Commission will continue to make every effort to improve the current and projected schedules and to minimize the delays.
Sincerely,
\\
l W
eph M. Hendrie l
_-...e
.~m._
l k
e s
- c;;nnn-l KEN.H olt.A N D COMMITTEE ON
- STs* DisTsect. Sourn CamouseA WAYS AND MEANS
. Z.U.:
Congregg of tije Uniteb sintateg
=
31)ouge of Erpresentatibeg
.2 z.u.wum EEasfjington, D.C. 20515
__j
- wm;;;
February 19, 1981
=
- '.'.2 G:-.>
I aE.
?$$ss Honorable John F. Ahearne Chairman United States Nuclear
> =
Regulatory Commission-3'" 5 Washington, D. C.
20555
=
- 7::;
Dear Mr. Chairman:
...a..:
4 We are deeply concerned by your January 30,' 1981 report to the.
.[;m House Approriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
It m,
is our understanding that the schedule which you reported for consideration by your agency of licensing of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Unit E.ay well cost the consumers of South Carolina over one hundred million dollcrs, and may imperil the reliable and adequate energy supply so necessary for a healthy economy in our state.
y As we understand the slippage revealed in your report, it is not occasioned by the need t'o consider any dramatic new safety or environmental issue; indeed the slippage de3s not seem to relate to any matter of sub-stance.
It appears to predict procedural delays in administrative pro-cessing, decision making, and reviews.
Between them, the owners of the Summer Unit, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and Santee-Cooper, serve more than 34% of the consumers and 36% of the load in our state. Each system is nonetheless relatively small on a national scale, and the 600 megawatts Summer would add to the SCE&G system and the 300 megawatts it represents to Santee-Cooper are important issues.
We are told that power from the Summer Unit will be vitally necessary by the early summer of 1982 to serve load, displace oil, and minimize cost increases.
It has been reported to us that the' Summer Unit will be complete and ready to load fuel by the late summer of this year.
It is our understanding that an extensive period of testing follows
""=
fuel loading and that about six months will be required to achieve commer-cial operation. Hence, it will be necessary for the licensing process to be complete by the late fall of this year, assuming, of course, that no v substantive reason committed to your discretion and expertise precludes
.u......
such a schedule. Otherwise, the Summer Unit will net be available for the heavy demand of the summer months.
L gg f/#;2769 6 THIS STATIONERY PRINTED oN PAPER MAoE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS M
t.
o
., -.., ~.
I c.cm.u fb Honorable John F. Ahearne February 19, 1981 Page Two
^
t..
(::
g 2ae It is our considered opinion that the Commission should reinstate its previous schedule for review of the Summer plant so as to move without delay into the public hearing phase and schedule completion of the licensing process in 1981. Additionally, we are requesting of the Secretary of Energy that his Department review the impact of the projected delay in terms of costs, capacity, and energy to the two systems and to the more than 375,000
. :=,
customers they serve, and report to Congress his findings and the position of the Administration in cases of this kind.
We want to work with you and our Colleagues to move forward with review of the Summer Unit and we urge that our request be given favorable consideration.
Sincerely, i;:
CARR'LLCAMPBELL,fM.C.
T HELLAND, M.C.
f O
mf I.
~
1 A
f%ou A SPE
- E,~M.C.
(
ERI$STF.
LLINGS, U.S.S.
'~ "-~
f::...=.
I Oh N %
,' 4
-yh JOHN L.
NAPIER, M.C.
$TROM THURMOND, U.S.S'.
(
BU p R DERRICK, M.C.
THOMAS F.
HARTNETT, M.C.
l c,.
l i es L