ML20008F562

Expresses Concern Re Inclusion of OPS Application in Proposed Rule Currently Under Consideration for near-term Cp/Mfg License Applications

ML20008F562
Person / Time
Site:	Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant
Issue date:	03/03/1981
From:	Chappell B HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20008F561	List: ML20008F562
References
NUDOCS 8104210248
Download: ML20008F562 (2)

Text

-

CILI. hHAPPELL.

. e e

==r==r e-mus.

. f,. r. ,_ ,

)

m, - , _ _ Oshn. ,samson 33870 W m D.c. aosts <-3 ._

n <-m Congress oltf)t t!%mttb htated e

o

)

4,raoemno,. %ottie of Representatibes ( * )*= = **

" ~L"'"' IEashington,D.C. 20515 ** **E_"""';l",,

=r owmict o, cowuma w ,

y

<-n-March 3, 1981 '

r Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: NRC - Inclusion of the Offshore Power System's Application in the Proposed Rule Currently Under Consideration for Near-Term Construction Permit / Manufacturing License Applications

Dear Chairman Hendrie:

In a letter dated February 24, 1981. to the Members of your Comission, Mr. A. R. Collier, President of Offshore Power Syste=s, outlined the basis for including his application for a Manufacturing Lic.anse within the rules presently under consideration for proceeding with pending Construction Permit and Manufacturing License applications.

Attached, for you- ready reference, are the four questions on the Offshore Power Systems situation which I posed in conju*.ction with the Hearing held by the House Appropriations Subco=dttee on Energy and Water Development on February 19, 1981.

It has now come to my attention that the Comission is scheduled to discuss this basic issue at a meeting to be held on Thursday, March 5, 1981, or ,

soon thereafter. ,"

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about this matter and want to be informed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes any action that would not conEinue to include the Offshore Power Systems application. -

. With kind regards, 1

Sincerely,

- -s1/

) Bill .appell

,/ Congress..u n BC:bos Enclosure 810.4 2'10 $YT' W+

, 8 I < ,.-\

1. I understand that Offshore Power Systems of Jacksonville, Flcrida has spent more than $185 million in 8 years in the belief that the Commission.

.1 Regulations,10 CFR 50 Appendix M, would 3, remain consistent for all light.

~ water reactors. The Atomic Safet,y abd Licensing Board has completed its review of the Offshore Power Systems application, except for post-Three Mile Island matters. Why then does the Commission feel that there is no

~

need to proceed'with the manufacturing license at this time? Isn't this tantamount to a denial of the manufacturing license?

2. Offshore Power Systems is the only applicant in the near term construction permit / manufacturing license group to have submitted responses to the post-TMI requirements in the NRC's NUREG 0660 (July, 1980) . What progress has been made toward completing the review of the Offshore Power Systems submittal and when will the review by completed?

3. The Ccmmission is encouraging standardization. Why then is the Commission considering indefinitely delaying a decision on the manufacturing license p q

. when the Offshore Power System's plant represents the most fully standardized

{ approach in compliance with the Commission's regulations? -

l l

1 -

4. Bearing in mind that Appendix M to 10 CFR 50 is the manufacturing license l option and, by its very nature, does not require a specific utility customer or site to be specified in the application, how can the Commission j

justify delaying the review by insisting that a customer be identified in violation of existing regulations?

l

[ -

l L ,

.o