ML20009A731
| ML20009A731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A729 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107140024 | |
| Download: ML20009A731 (9) | |
Text
M s
y_
June 8,1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary FROM:
T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations, EDO
SUBJECT:
RESPONSETOJ.J.O'CONNOR(CONED)
Attached is a revision of the O'Connor letter to take into account OGC's coments.
(Signed) T. A, Rehm T. A. Rehm
Attachment:
As stated Distribution M
~
TARehm 4
s i
l l
1 8107140024 810629 PDR ADOCK 05000454 A
PDR l
l
! c mcr >.A. 0..: E0 L'.
lou 7.NAMEk
.. q.
e*Tr >
6./.. 9..../.8. 1......
9 dYM 3dhh6 h.
w l
DRAFT Mr. James J. CConnor, Chainnan Comannwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767-Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your letter of March 27, 1981 concerning the licensing schedule for the Byron Nuclear Station. The Commission shares your concerns about licensing delays, not only for the Byron Station, but for all plants that are potentially affected by delays in the licensing process.
During (the past) recent months, the Commission and its staff have spent considerable time in reviewing tTie licensing schedules for these plants and have undertaken various approaches to shorten them wherever possible.
For those plants nearing completion, the primary proble. is the projected length of the hearing process and subsequent Commission review.
Under our previous rules, an operating license was not issued until de Appeal Board and the Commission had reviewed the Licensing Board decision. This review
~
process was scheduled to take about three months.
(We have published pro-posed changes to) The Commission has just revised that rule which will shorten this time at least two aonths.
This savings has been applied to all plants.
We also believe we can compress the average hearing schedule from (an average of) 18 months to approximately 11 months by reducing the time allowed for each part of the process and by providing firmer time management.
In March, the Commission published for commeliT proposed rule changes which would help to accomplish this.
In addition, we (intend to) issued the enclosed (a) policy statement providing guidance to the Licensing Boards Tar (on) conducting proceedings so as to expedite the process.
For plants due to be completed in late 1982 and in 1983 and beyond, earlier completion of staff reviews are proposed to help eliminate potential delays.
Efforts to expedite staff reviews include (1) hiring of additional staff and mandat. y overtime, (2) reallocation of some existing resources to the Office of Nuclear Regulation, and (3) transfer of some scheduled projects from that Office to other NRC Offices.
I With regard to hearings, on May 20, 1981, the Commission issued a " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings" that arovides guidance for the balanced and efficient conduct of all phases of the learing process. The Commission has proposed rule changes to permit more immediate operation of nuclear power plants that have received favorable decisions by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on fuel loading and low power testing or full power operating licenses.
DRAFT Revised Page l
Mr. James J. O'Connor In our April 30, 1981 report to the house Appropriations Subcommittee on i
Energy and Water Development, the projected schedule for the Byron Station was based on your estimated construction complet1cn date and a standard set of hearing assumptions.
In order to better allocate our resources, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Harold R. Denton has recently requested that the applicants for late 1962 plants and the 1964 plants, i
including Byron, provide updated construction completion dates.
Upon receipt i
of the responses to the Director's request, the statt will develop case spec 1 tic nearing schedules in order to identity those start reviews wnich need to be accelerated. We recognize that Byron faces strong intervention and that an eleven month schedule is too optimistic.
The upcoming re-evaluation will help identify the resources available for reallocation to i
the Byron licensing re' view.
We agree that if no additional rasources are l
identified, delays will be likely and interim licensing legislation may be the only real solution.
On Marcn 18, '981, 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 nearing.
Such interim operation would save several months and, where the low power testing revealed a need for repairs or modificaitons, could save substantially more time. This proposed authority would expire at the end of 1983 thereby assurino 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.
In conclusion, we believe that the actions we have taken and those we are considering will provide improvemets in licensing schedules without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety.
Consistent with available resources our goal is that there should be no delay to the operation of 1983 plants, including the Byron Station.
Sincerley, Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman
.e.
p f
\\
\\
/
\\
\\
\\
NAY 131981
'N
\\
\\
FOR:
The Commissioners
\\
FR0ft:
Wil am J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
LETTER FROM COMMONWEALTH EDISON CONCERNING LICENSING SCHEDULE FOR BYRON PURPOSE:
Approve e proposed letter to Mr. O'Connor.
DISCUSSION:
By letter da'ted March 27, 1981, Mr. O'Connor expressed
\\
concerns with ot.' schedule for review of the application for a'i operating license for the Byron Nuclear Station.
The current schedul.e for the Byron Nuclear Station, as reported in the April NRC Report to Congressman Bevill, is based on an eleven month period from the issuance of the SSER to the Commission decision date..This eleven month schedule incorporates the time-saving measures under consideration by the Commission.
Byron is expected to be a heavily contested case, with ninety contentions pending before the licensing board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission review and approve the draft response prepared by staff.
N l
(SigneW William 1. Ditcks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations 1
i
Enclosure:
Proposed Letter to Mr. O'Connor i
Contact:
Jack Roe, NRR 492-9606 REWRITE:
SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCES o"'cr >
1.R.:. I,R,
..E p#..
5"*'>. JJ
( :.dm...WJ D.l s..
- >.5111Rl.
.W.h/.01....
nac e osu ais oo,soinacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "o '9eo-a:9 e24
1 j
jf jg3KQf
~
0 t.;l P-
\\
FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
Wil m J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
LETTElbfROM COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N CONCERNING LICENSING SCHEDUL OR BYRON PURPOSE:
Approve the roposed letter to Mr. O' Conner.
N DISCUSSION:
By letter dated.
concerns with our(arch 27, 1981, Mr. O' Conner expressed Nchedule for review of the application for an operating liknse for the Byron Nuclear Station.
N The current schedule fogthe Byron Nuclear Station, as reported in the April NRC port to Congressman Bevill, is based on an eleven mont riod from the issuance of the SSER to the Comission cision date.
This eleven month schedule incorporales the time-saving measures under 90nsideration by th Commission, eiebd h%>
Byron is potentiaWy a heavily contes ed case with s
ninety contentions pending before the lit;ensing board.
l Theachedula_for-4yron-may-be significantly-impacted due-to-decis_fons-on-the-time-saving measurei~~urider
'co nsi dera tion _by_the_Commi s s i on.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission review and approve the draft resp se prepared by staff.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Proposed letter to Mr. O' Conner cc: OGC OPE SECY
Contact:
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Jea Rue, imR o"'a > 492.-9.606....
.... 01........
..QL*
... AD.: L*....
..0 ELD *...
. 0,N R,R,,,,,
,, E,D.0.....
N"">
JRGE. uni.......DGE.ISENBUT...
..RtTEDESCG.
ECASE/HRDEllI0fl... NJDIRC KS....
f
- I
.5/....../.61.....
.. 5/... / 81..
..5/../81...
Ecc ronu aie no soinucu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- = ' * * - * * "
3
- o * *
{
(?
f f
1
/
FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
Wil am J. Dircks, Executive irector for Operations
SUBJECT:
LETTER F COMMONWEALTH ED SON CONCERNING LICENSING t
~ SCHEDULE F0 YRON PURPOSE:
Approve the propo d lett r to Mr. O' Conner.
DISCUSSION:
By letter dated Marcn 1981, Mr. O' Conner expressed concerns with r.chedule for review of the application for an o rating license for the Byron Nuclear Sta on.
j RECOMMFNDATION:
The Comission revie and approveh e draft response prepared by staff.
1illiam J. Dircks xecutive Director for Operations
Attachment:
Proposed letter to Mr. O' Conner cc: OGC I
OPE i.
SECY I
l
Contact:
Jack Roe, NRR
&g),' lj 492-9606.
i AD:
hkhj
\\
RTedesco l
4/'R /81 Mm i
MN
.... O.N R.R.........
.... E D.0........
- orricr >..... D.'........O.#....
,..;............ y......
leumwr>..J...... :,r,nj.....
C c.'. 6.n..h..u.t...
..E.G..C. i..e........
...H..R. D..e..n. t.o. n.......
. WJ. D..i.r..c. k s......
/. 81
..$../ g../.81 g/
/81
....J/
/81
- *'s >. 4/.22.., /.81
.s..
l NRC PORM 316 tlO,80t NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
' " " w-32n24 ;
T b
%g
.i
+
O RAFT Mr. James J. O'Connor, Chainnan Comonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your letter of March 27, 1981 concerning the licensing schedule for the Byron Nuclear Station. The Comission shares your concerns about ifcensing delays, not only for the Byron Station, but for all plants that are potentially affected by delays in the Itcensing process. During the past month, the Comission and its staff have spent considerable time in reviewing the licensing schedules for these plants and have undertaken various anproaches to shorten them wherever possible.
For those plants nearing completion, the primary problem is the projected l
1ength of the hearing process and subsequent Comission review.
Under our current rules, an operating license is not issued until the Appeal Board and the Comission review the Licensing' Board decision.
This review process takes about three months. We have published proposed changes to our rules for public comment which will shorten this time at least two months. This l
projected savings has been applied to all plants.
We also believe we can compress the hearing schedule from an average of l
18 months to approximately 11 months by reducing the time allowed for each part of the process and providing firmer time management.
In March, the Comission published for coment proposed rule changes which would help to acco wlish this, in addition, we intend to issue a policy statement providing guidance to the Licensing Boards on conducting proceedings so as to expedite the process.
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 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.
We are currently implementing many of these proposals.
p
"'c0
' 5" ' >
facronuaissiouoinncuo2do OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
]*o "-32f*
g
% 376 g
gg 4
<gy y
Q I
Mr. James J. O'Connor j i
j 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 several 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 ad.justment to our licensing renuirements would be temporary and confined to those plants which have been most directly affected by the Commission's post-TMI action.
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.
It is our goal to be prepared to issue the operating license for the Byron Station upon construction completion.
The srhedule for the Byron Station is based on a standard eleven month time period from the issuance of the final Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) to the NRC Decision Date. The eleven month time period incorporates the efficiency measures projected to be in place in the near future. The eleven month time period is based on five months from issuance of the SSER to the start of hearing, five months from start of hearing to the initial decision by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, and one month from the initial decision to the Comission's decision date.
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, and that there will be no delay to the operation of the Byron Station.
Sincerely, DISTRIBUTION:
a n
WDircks PFine KCornell HThompson TRehm SCavanaugb(ED010366)
HShapar PBrandenberg (EJ010366)
NHaller HDenton ECase PPAS SHanauer C)
RMattson 7
B BSnyder AD:L s f k-f TMurley
'RVollmer MediMi. _ N I i
)g MN 0,NRP,
ED0
"'c W DL JRoe3mj,, j Lisenhut EGCpse HRDef771 WJDircks su m u M/ggdN.
5/,
, / 81,,
5/,,], /81 5/,,/81 5/
/81
\\
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "o***
u we r o n u.u c o c co,n uc u e n e
s n
4k_
f FI OM; ACTION CONTROL DATES COMPL oEAOtiNc 4-m n CONTROL NO.10 3 6
'l
%e. a. e>ce.aw Ceemesseelth Edison Co.'.
ACKNOWLE DGMEN T DATE OF DO UMENT -.
INTERf M REPLY TO:
j PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE M $ N A M rje, FINAL REPLY [d[j@M CHAIRMAN FILE LOCATIONg//
O ExCCurive otREcTOR OT H E.% -
DESCRIPTION b LETTER _ O MEMO O REPORT C OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR ret, LARKS Exemses concern ever delays te licenstas teEt_Dprovidetaputto?h9.
. Syrom.
PRIORITY CLASSIFIED DATA oOCUMENT/ COPY No.
CLASSlFICATIONl NUMBER OF PAGES -
CATEGORY POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
O ' NSI O Ro O rRO ASSIGNED 10 _
,- DATE l_NFORMATION ROUTING -
LEG AL REVIEW C F lN A L U COPY 1
V1FF:wn,. iNM 4*(*JI 63rGE5 C359 -
ASSIGNED TO:
DATc NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS Cornell Desitett NOTIFY:
a 4-'---
4fg_
3, m,1 p_
pg"*
1.
PPAS O EDO ADMIN & CORHES 8 A s_
now.h.-
trra n cxr.
MOI' 2.
(Inflat20;{- vZn -
COMMEN TS, NOTIFY:
Maller.3jf,,,,
~~-
~
g c x T.
i JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
O YEs
-U No pHC r nu 232 EXECUTIVE DlHECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NOT REMOVE TN/S COPP i
t i
i
--m.,-
- .-_y r._,.,,,
.1
\\
- m f',
. 81-0487 No. M f
MX 4/3/81
. 'j'"
1 Logging Date t >*;
NRC SECRETARIAT 4
- g-
'3 t -
4
.~ c,'
TO:
" Commissioner Date 7,,,.j.., '
,_,z",
XXD Emec. Dir./Oper.
Gen. Counsel
~
Cong. Liaison O Soincitor
- ?,'~'~
Public Affairs Secretary O insoector s. Auditor
'7; Policy Evaluation g,.,
incoming: James J. O'Connor. Chairman i,
s From: JNMMH Commonwealth Edison Co.
4 To: Chairman Hendrie 3/27/81 o,,,
Sub ect: ExDresses concern over delays in i
_ licensina Byron Commission review and n
XE Prepare repi, to, signaiure o,;
XM Chairm*"
Date due Comm: April 20 Commissioner E DO, GC. CL, SO L, PA. SE CY. i A. PE Signature block omitted X3 Reiurn o,iginai o, incoming.itn r,,ponse 1
For direct reply' For appropriate action For information R,mams:
CDvs to:
RF Docket c>-
For the Commission:
Combs
' Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Branch nac42 ACTION SLIP
Commonwe:lth Edison O
1.-_
one First Nattnal Plaza. Chicago, tilinois l
Ad;ress Reply tr Past Office Box 767 Chicago, Illin;is 60690 March 27, 1981 The Honorable Joseph Hendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
We have reviewed the monthly NRC status reports to Congressman Bevill, submitted pursuant to House Report 96-1093, reporting the status of the NRC's efforts to carry out its licensing and regulatory duties.
We believe that the NRC's projections with respect to the licensing schedule of Edison's Byron Station are unrealistic and, unless sub-stantially improved, will result in significant licensing delays.
Indeed, as we explain below, the present schedule may delay the licensing of the Byron facility by as much as 16 months.
Delays in the projected in-service date for the Byron Units will have severe impacts on the Company and its ratepayers.
Recently, the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state agency charged with the general regulation of public utilities in the State of Illinois, completed an extensive investigation into the Company's construction program.
The Commission concluded that Edison has a duty to its ratepayers to complete the Byron and Braidwood Stations in as timely and economic a manner as possible.
In quantitative terms, the costs of licensing delays for Byron Unit 1 amounts to approximately $18 million per month.
Increase to the cost of providing electric services must ultimately ne borne by Edison's customers.
To avoid these severe impacts the Company is fully prepared to commit the resources necessary to complete the licensing and construction of the Byron facility by its present schedule for fuel loading; April, 1983 for Unit 1 and April, 1984 for Unit 2.
However, we are seriously concerned that unless significant effort is made to step up the NRC licensing review, the licensing process will not be completed until well after the completion of construction of the facility.
The Status Report subm!.tted on January 30, 1981
. projects the following schedule:
r
~ giffA3f319
'Comm:nw;;lth Edison f
The Honorable Joseph Hendrie
' March 27, 1981 Page Two.
1 - SER i.eLuance - 6/82f' 2 - SSER issuance - 9/82 3 - DES issuance - 5/82 4 - Commencement of hearings - 7/82 l
5 - Licensing Board decision - 2/83 6 - Licensing Completed - 4/83 7 - Completion of-Construction - 4/83 i
Thus, the schedule provides for one month of discovery and other preliminary activities (e.g. motions for summary i
~
disposition, preparing prefiled testimony) between the issuance of the SER and the commencement of the hearings.
There is no time provided for prehearing matters between the i
issuance of the supplement to the SER and the commencement
[
of hearings, since the hearings would start two months prior i
to the_ issuance of that document.
In addition, the schedule provides for 8 months between the issuance of the SER and
~
the licensing board initial decision, and only 5 months between the issuance of the SSER and the initial decision.
Finally, a two month period is allowed for the Appeal Board and Commission review concerning the immediate effectiveness l
of the licensing board decision.
t The most-troublesome aspect of this schedule
[
j concerns the period of time allocated for the hearing process.
The Byron proceeding is heavily contested.
The licensing board recently accepted in excess of 120 contentions filed l
by two groups of intervenors as issues in controversy.
It
'l i
11s almost a certainty that the period of time required to j_
issue an initial decision will substantially exceed the 8 conduct an evidentiary hearing, file proposed findings, and months. currently allotted by the NRC.
Moreover, for planning purposes, it is only prudent to assume that Intervenors will resist commencement of the evidentiary hearing until after ACRS consideration of the SER and issuance of the SSER.
i Present practice before licensing boards provides for limited i
discovery on_ issues addressed in the SSER.
In short, it is i'
totally unrealistic to put forth a schedule in which contested
' hearings and issuance of an SSER overlap.
[
The Commission itself has. recognized that SSER I
i
_ issuance is a pacing item for commencement of the hearing process.
Recent experience with the Staff licensing review l
for' Edison's LaSalle-Station indicates that until the issuance Y
5 l
i L
I l
i l-i
..m
~
C:mm:nw :lth Edis:n The Honorable Joseph Hendrie March 27, 1981 Page Three of the SER and SSER, items constan'tly remain open for additional re-evaluation due to apparent changes in position within the Staff.
Accordingly, it is extremely difficult for an applicant or other parties to a licensing prcceeding to anticipate the Staff position on many items prior to the issuance of the SER and SSER.
Of course, since the Staff position is important in terms of the resolution of issues to be considered at a hearing, the value of commencing hearings prior to the submittal of the SSER is highly quastionable.
In the January, 1981 Status Report, the Commission states that the span between the issuance of the SSER and the start of hearing date for 9 of the 11 near term operating license proceedings "should be increased from the previously assumed 1-2 months to 2-6 months."
Clearly, if similar assumptions were made with respect to the Byron proceeding the projected date for completion of licensing would be extended by as much as 9 months.
In view of these matters, we believe that the current NRC projection of 8 months between the commencement of the hearings and completion of the licensing process cannot possibly be justified.
A more realistic, but nonetheless optimistic, assessment should allow a minimum of 23 months between the issuance of the SSER and the completion of licensing.
This projection is based upon the following time intervals:
- SSER - Start hearing - 4 mo-ths
- Start hearing - Complete he.. ring - 10 months
- Complete hearing - Proposed findings - 2 months
- Proposed findings - Initial decision - 4 months
- Initial decision - ASLAB and NRC review on immediato effectiveness - 3 months Using this projection, under the current September, 1982 date for the issuance of the SSER, licensing would not be completed until August, 1984; 16 months later than the date projected in the Status Report for completion of licensing and Edison's scheduled date for the completion of construction.
Accordingly, we submit that the Byron Station should have been identified in the Status Report, as a plant which will be impacted by delays in NRC licensing.
In order
C mm:nw:alth Edis:n The Honorable Joseph Hendrie March 27, 1981 Page Four to mitigate this impact we believe the Staff SER and SSER must be completed, at the latest, by the summer of 1981.
This date is attainable, but only if substantial additional NRC manpower is assigned to the Byron licensing review.
We recognize that there presently exists a shortage of qualified NRC personnel assigned to licensing functions.
This shortage could be significantly reduced by allocating NRC personnel to the Byron project who are currently assigned to non-licensing functions.
In particular, we are concerned that the NRC's current proposed program to implement Section 110 of Public Law 96-295, which calls for a 7-10 year program which will require several hundred manyears of NRC manpower, will unnecessarily divert substantial Staff resources at the expense of licensing.
We believe that it is essential that the NRC re-evaluate this proposal, as well as other similar proposals related to low priority matters, and reallocate much needed NRC personnel to high priority licensing tasks.
It is regretable that the present state of affairs forces us to plan for a minimum of 23 months between the issuance of the SSER and the completion of l!. censing.
We believe that, with the adoption of certain Ioforms to the NRC adjudicatory process, this extended period of time could be significantly reduced without, in any way, com-promising the NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
In particular, the Commission should reinstitute 10 CFR S2.764, which provides for immediate effectiveness of licensing board decisions.
The suspension of this rule was clearly not warranted.
In the typical case, there is no reason whatever to call into question the licensing board decision and delay its immediate effectiveness.
The Com-mission's authority to stay initial decisions, under 10 CFR S2.788, is a more than adequate mechanism to deal with the infrequent situation where an initial decision may raise serious safety or environmental concerns.
In addition, we believe that the hearing process could be considerably shortened if licensing boards were i
instructed to require that contentions to be litigated in the hearing are specific, focused and raise issues which are t
l l
i
=-
oo.
~
C:mm:nws:lth Edis n The Honorable Joseph Hendrie i
March.27, 1981 Page Five directly related to the facility under review, as provided -
in the Commission's regulations.
This practice has not been followed by many licensing boards, and has resulted in unnecessarily protracting the hearing process.
In conclusion, we urge the Commission to adopt a more realistic approach in establishing licensing schedules and evaluating the impacts of licensing delays.
We also urge the Commission to take steps necessary to minimize the delays in licensing of the Byron facility which will certainly result from the NRC's current schedule.
Such action is in
- the best interest of the customers and stockholders of Commonwealth Edison as well as the national energy program, for delays in Byron operation will'be replaced, to a large extent, by energy generated by oil.
Very respectfully yours,
// f'
. ' n. W
- L.
th), u -1
~
' James J., o' Connor '
Chairman'
'a cc:
Governor Thompson s/
Chairman Hasten et