ML20039A975
| ML20039A975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1981 |
| From: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039A971 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112220104 | |
| Download: ML20039A975 (2) | |
Text
'
NINETY.C'fVENTH CONG.~MlnS CHl.RLES COMMLIN M Jt!3 K.
A4 A2tZ CHABIM1N SURTON. CAur, MADAfEL LUJAN, JA Max.
STANLEY ECOVfLLE s.DetNT w..tASTtsem4 DER. W.S.
DON M. C AW4E* CAUF.
AZSOCIATE STAFF ElhL TOR 7, =*.".782.5.
% ES, v.$^=siaa. C.ur.
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
^"o counsel Jon sosanu=a.
manaxr an U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
'EE "C E' "
gg
."ucYwNr"n once, s ea E en WASHINGTON D.C.
20515 Caur.
TIMOTHY w. GUDOEN J "."*',. 3"& *^""-
C'.'.'.".",".";."""-
-"E""*"c^"*""
llll"T.h"..""".".*;...
'.'.""m'.*.""*c"*
_,dI53., ".~"".~ ' '$
3.lE.[. d.". " " "-
September 29, 1981
.v.
C" ".; ""C" "L".". ",#."ll"J;
=";.~." O.0
"" "ll.'"", ;li.l; The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is to seek clarification of the Commission's testimony presented at the Energy and the Environment Subcommittee's February 24,'1981 hearing on the NRC's authorization request for fiscal years 1982 and 1983.
The specific statements in question are contained in former Chairman Ahearne's statement-regarding the alleged possibility that, at various times during tne next couple of years, a few new nuclear plants may sit idle awaiting completion of their NRC operating.
license proceedings.
On this matter, and speaking for the Commission, Chairman Ahearne' told the Subcommittee:
"We face, however, a problem in'that a significant number of plants will be completed and ready to operate before the conclusion of their operating licensing hearings.
Many of the affected units were substantially finished when the Three Mile Island accident occurred, while the construction of others has been completed since then.... We are not satisfied with the present situation and we are working to find ways to accelerate the hearings on those plants whose continued idleness prevents substantial investments from benefiting either the consumers or the generating utilities."
(Emphasis added).
(2/24/81 Subcommittee transcript, p. 14)
For the purpose of clarifying and completing the Subcommittee's hearing record, I ask that the Commission provide answers to the following questions.
~
@l l L2.10 / o Y J
e' 2-1.
Which plants awaiting an operating license on February 24, 1981 were "substantially finished" at the time of the Three Mile Island accident?
For each of these plants, how does-the Commission define "substantially finished?"
2.
Which plants awaiting an NRC operating license on February 24, 1981 had their construction
" completed" subsequent to the TMI accident?
3.
Which plants, where construction had been completed, wc.e characterized on February 24, 1981 by'" continued idleness" where such idleness was solely' attributable to the NRC's inability to issue an operating license even.though the licensee believed and the NRC determined that the plant was in substantially full compliance with regulatory requirements for such license?
Thank you for your attention to these questions, I look forward to your response.
In addition, I would welcome individual Commissioner's views regarding the so-called
" licensing backlog" that may cause the NRC licensing process.
to be on the " critical path" for~several nuclear plants.
Sincerely, us
' c7
.{! (1
( Q7' MOM S-K. UDALL.
Chairman O
e
7 4'
l ac
^
st.
N.
- i 00T 191981 FOR:
The Conr11ssioners FRUl:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for coerations SU3 JECT:
RESPONSE TO CHAIPJtVi UDALL 'S QUESTIO lS OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1931 PURPOSE:
To obtain Commission approval p'f the subject response for trans-nittal to Chain 1an Udall DISCUSSION:
In a letter, dated Septeabe 23,1981 ( Attachaent 1), Chairnan Udall requested answers to three questions regardinq the licensing status for certain plants at the time the Connission presented testimony on February 24 1931 at the House Energy and Environment Subco,nittee's hearing n the NRC's authorization request for fiscal years 1982 and 1983.
he letter also welcomed individual Commissioner's views egarding the licensing backlog that may cause the tiRC licens ng process to be on the critical path for several plants. provi es the oroposed response to Chainaan Udall's letter.
It consi ts of a letter of transmittal and Enclosure i to the letter wh ch provides the responses to the three specific questions posed in Chainaan Udall's letter. The proposed response also states th, the individual Co791ssioner's views are provided (if any are) to the transmittal letter.
Contact:
E. Licitra X27200 l
r------__
ig
'tzp;4 4
9 e
f6 7,
C.
..9EC0iMEffDATION:
That the Comission approve the proposed response for transntittal to Chairian Udall.
nipmewuilam J.nirekt i
W1111a1 J. Dircks, Executive Director -
for Operations Attachlents:
(1)
Ltr., dtd. 9/29/81 fru. Chainaan Udall (2 ) Proposed Response to Chairman Udall's ltr.
DISTRIBUTION:
HMEMNIXKIIMXHBXX Central File LPDR PDR NSIC TERA
.LB#3 Files
'ELicitra FMiraglia
'RTedesco LDEisenhut PPAS' HDenton ECase WDircks ED0 WJDircks ry 10/N{81-
'L
[f'"DL:b(),,,,,,, g S,,,,,,,
,,,tj R R,,,,,,,,,
NRR 0L B#3 omer)
DL DL
,g,
ia R
asco DGEi ;
t
,..E.G..C.a. s..e..:.j b..
HR en on
.E.A..L.......... :..j t.
suaaaar>
i......8........
..... e.......
,,,, f f 81.,,,,,,,i,9t,f,8!,,,,,!gf,g,,,,
10
/81
... 1.o@81.......1.9.( /.81 1o a^">..wg/a1...
P4RC FORM 318 410s80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'" "8#-a2 e24
[
'o UNITED STATES E'
~ r"h, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
.. E '
WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 o,
a
%,...../
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Chairman Udall:
In your letter of September 29, 1981, you requested answers to three questions regarding the licensing status for certain plants at the time the Comission presented testimony on February 24,1981 at the Energy and the Environment Subcomittee's hearing on the NRC's authorization request for fiscal years 1982 and 1983.
As you stated in your letter, the purpose for the request is to seek clarification of the Comission's testimony at that time.
The responses to the three questions are provided in Enclosure 1.
Your letter also welcomed individual Comissioner's views regarding the licensing backlog that may cause the NRC licensing process to be on the critical path for several nuclear plants. The response to this request is provided in,.
Please advise us if you have any other questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely, Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Enclosures :
(1) Responses to Three Questions (2 ) Individual Comissioner Views
(
Question 1.
Which plants awaiting an operating license on February 24, 1981 were "substantially finished" at the time of the Three Mile Island accident?
For each of these plants, how does the Conmission define "substantially finished?"
Response
At the time of the Three Mile Island accide:.t, there were six plants, as shown below, which were substantially finished.
For each of these plants, substantially finished is defined as being approximately 95% complete or better.
Plant
% Complete Diablo Canyon Unit 1 99 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 98 Salem Unit 2 99 North Anna Unit 2 98 Sequoyah Unit 1 97 McGuire Unit 1 95 On February 24, 1981, four of these plants (Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, Salem Unit 2 and McGuire Unit 1) were awaiting a full power operating license. North Anna Unit 2 and Sequoyah Unit I had received their full power licenses in August 1980 and September 1980, respectively.
(The only other plant which was considered to be more than 90% complete at the time was Zimmer Unit 1 at 93%.)
It should be noted Ulat even if plant construction is completed, the potential for unanticipated difficulties still exists which could delay fuel loading for an extended period of time.
Recent examples of this include Farley Unit 2 which had an extended delay due to final installation of a number of pipe supports and hangers and Diablo Canyon Unit 1 which discovered that certain piping may not be properly analyzed for seismic loads.
1 l
t Question 2.
Which plants awaiting an NRC operating license on February 24, 1981 had their construction " completed" subsequent to the TMI accident?
Response
On February 24, 1981, there were four plants awaiting an NRC full powr license whose construction was completed subsequent to the 1M1 accident. Those plants are Salem Unit 2 (completed in April 1980), Farley Unit 2 (completed in October 1980) McGuire Unit 1 (completed in January 1981) and Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (at the time, stated to be completed in January 1981 by the applicant who subsequently revised the completion date to March 1981). The licensing status for each of those four plants on February 24, 1981 was as follows:
Salem Unit 2 had been issued a low power (5%) license in April 1980.
A decision on a full powr license was pending on satisfactory development of the State (Delaware and New Jersey) emergency plans.
Farley Unit 2 had been issued a low power (5%) license in October 1980.
A decision on a full power license was pending on satisfactory completion of the requirements relating to full pomr operation. ( A favorable decision on a full power license was reached in March 1981 and the license was issued on March 31, 1981.)
McGuire Unit I had been issued a zero powr license in January 1981.
A decision on a full power license was pending an completion of the reopened hearings to consider the issue of hydrogen control within containment in the event of an accident. ( A favorable decision on a full power license was reached in June 1981 and the license was issued on July 8,1981.)
)
Question 2 Continued,
For Diablo ranyon Unit 1, decisions on both a low powcr (5%) license and a full powr license were pending on the conduct and completion of the hearings on 1MI-related requirements for both low power'and full power operation. A decision on a low powr license was also pending on completion of Appeal Board review of physical security matters.
4 mus N
t 0
4 I
I I
I
l l
Question 3.
Which plants, where construction had been completed, were characterized on February 24, 1981 by " continued idleness" where such idleness was solely attributable to the NRC's inability to issue an operating license even though the licensee believed and the NRC determined that the plant was in substantially full coupliance with regulatory requirements for such license?
Response
As stated in response to Question 2, on February 24, 1981 there were four plants awaiting full power licenses for which construction had been coupleted. Those s
plants are Salem Unit 2, Farley Unit 2, McGuire Unit 1 and Diablo Canyon Unit 1.
For Farley Unit 2 and McGuire Unit 1, these plants were not sitting idle since b
they were issued a low power (5%) license and a zero power license, respectively, at the time of construction canpletion and were subsequently issued a full power license prior to impacting the startup schedule for commercial operation.
Tha startup schedule for Salem Unit 2 was impacted by NRC's inability to issue a full power operating license even though the plant was "substantially" in full compliance with the regulatory requirements for such license.
However, as stated in response to Question 2, a decision on a full power license was p'ending on satisfactory development of the State emergency plans by Delaware and New
(
Jersey.
As a result, the plant idleness was not solely attributable to the NRC, but was primarily contingent on FEMA receiving acceptable State plans and satisfactorily canpleting an emergency drill. ( A favorable decision on a full power license was subsequently reached in May 1981 and the license was issued on May 20, 1981.-)
The startup schedule for Diablo Canyon Unit I was impacted by NRC's inability to issue a full power license.
Although the plant was substantially in full compliance with regulatory requirements, neither a low power (5%) nor a full power license could be issued until dRC hearings could be completed on TMI-related requirements for low and full pow?r operation. A decision on the low
Question 3 Continued 2-power license was also pending on a decision by the Appeal Board on physical security matters. ( A favorable decision on a low powr license was subsequently-reached in September 1981 and the license was issued on September 22, 1981.
However, the applicant has halted fuel loading until a reanalysis is completed of certain piping which may not have been properly analyzed for seismic loads.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _. _ _