ML20009A728
| ML20009A728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Oconnor J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A729 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107140020 | |
| Download: ML20009A728 (2) | |
Text
_ - - _ _ _ -. _.
.~
-DISTRIBUTION q.
%W Y
'Cr C."
. gehg C
GJ, 4 6Y Cornell I
Rehm Shapar MPA Denton June 29, 1981
').I Case
/
Roe Eisenhut 4
Cavanaugh s
y6(b 1 gggi" ?
ED0-10366 Mr. ' James J. O'Connor, Chaiman
'9 Comonwealth Edison Company 3g 0 g
CA Post Cffice Box 767 SECY C
Chicago, Illinois 60690 4
o.5-PDR
's I
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
4 g
I am pleased to respond to your letter of March 27, 1981 concerning the licensing schedule for the Byron Nuclear Station.
The Comission shares your concerns about licensing decision delays, not only for the Byron Station, but for all plants that are potentially affected by delays in the licensing process. During recent months, the Comission and it::
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 nearing completion, the primary problem is the projected length of the hearing process and subsequent Comission review. Under our previous rules, an operating license was not issued until the Appeal Board and the Comission had reviewed the Licensing Board decision.
This review process was scheduled to take about three months.
The i
Comission has just revised that rule so as to shorten this time by about two months. This savings will accrue to all cases where a hearing is held.
We also believe we can compr?ss the average hearing schedule from 18 4~
months to approximately 10 months by reducing the time allowed for each part of the process and by providing firmer time management.
In March, the Comission published for comment proposed rule changes which would help to accomplish this.
Final rule changes, and further proposed rule changes were published this month.
In addition, we issued the enclosed policy statement providing guidance to the Licensing Boards for conducting proceedings so as to expedite the process.
For plants due to be corepleted in late 1982 and in 1983 and beyond, earlier completion of staff reviews are proposed to help eliminate l
potential delays. Efforts to expedite staff reviews include (1) hiring of additional staff and mandatory overtime; (Q reallocation of some existing resources to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; and (3) transfer of some scheduled projects from that Office to other NRC Offices.
~
- "" 8107140020 810629 sunsus)
PDR ADOCK 05000454 A
.....j.........
....l............
l I NRc roa" 3'8 o'80'uacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e - -329 m
~ =~
Mr. James J. O'Connor In our April 30, 1981 report to the House Appropriations Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development, the projected schedule for the Byron Station was based on your estimated construction completion date and a standard set of hearing assumptions.
The current schedule for the Byron Station projects issuance of the final staff safety evaluation report supplement in May,1982 and the final environmental statement in June, 1982. The hearing is scheduled to start in October,1982, the Board initial decision is projected for March,1983, at:d the Commission review of the initial decision should be completed in April,1983, corresponding to your current construction completion date.
In order to better allocate our resources, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Harold R. Denton, has recently requested that the applicants for late 1982 plants and the 1983 plants, including Byron, provide updated construction completion dates.
Upon receipt of the responses to the Director's request, the staff will develop case specific hearing schedules in order to identify those staff reviews which need to be accelerated. We recognize that Byron faces strong intervention and that the current schedule may be optimistic. The staff reevaluation will help identify the resources evaildle for reallocation to the Byron licensing review if that is judged necessary. We recognize that if the current schedule for Byron Station 1.* found to be optimistic and if no additional resources can be found to accelerate the staff reviews, some delay in the licensing decision mr.y result.
I should note that Comissioner Ahearne is convinced the current schedule is too optimistic and has serious doubts that the Comission will be able to complete its licensing process by April,1983.
In that event, interim licensing legislation now before the Congress may be the only alternative to delay. However, while the Commission has supported the concept of interim licensing for low-power operation, it cannot comit itself to authorize such action for any particular plant at this time.
In conclusion, we believe that the actions we have taken and those we are considering will provide improvements in licensing schedules without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety.
Consistent with available resource 7 our goal is to renat.r a decision on issuance of an 4
i operating license prior to the time the plant is completed and ready for fuel loading.
Sincerely,
'_leared with all Cmrs.' Offices by SECY C/R Oddnal W BY and discussed and affirmed at June 26, 1981 Commission meeting.
MSePh M. Hendn,e.
Ref.-CR-81-081A J seph M. Hendrie Typed in final in the Office of the Secretary.
Enclosure:
Policy Statement Orig ting Office:
ED0/NRR SECY Ticket #81-0487 omer>
SECY OCM OCF
-+
E55dE.'..~.S..~.~.".~."..'.'.'..'
T
../2?/8
.... !6 6
NRC FORM 3tB OO,80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e - --32n24
..