ML20106C803
| ML20106C803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1984 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Bell N NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19303C227 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-148 SECY-81-366, SECY-81-366A, SECY-84-108, NUDOCS 8502120379 | |
| Download: ML20106C803 (3) | |
Text
r
. (f >* %Q[o f~Df UNITED STATES g
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 L
- 4
%,...../
SEP 5 1984 Ms. Nina Bell Nuclear Safety Analyst Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW s
4th Floor IN RESPONSE REFER Washington,.DC 20035 TO F01A-84-148
Dear Ms. Bell:
This is an eighth partial response to your letter dated March 1,1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, six categories o.f information pertaining to the application of the "Sholly Amendment" to the consideration of the Three Mile Island-l Steam Generator operating license amendment.
The documents listed on the enclosed appendix are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Inese documents will be filed in PDR folder F01A-84-148 under your name.
The review of additional documents subject to your request has not been completed. As soon as the review is completed, we will inform you of our disclosure determination.
Sinc ely,
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
Appendix i
8502120379 840905 PDR FOIA BELL 84-148 PDR
F01A-84-148 (8thresponse)
APPENDIX DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 1.
12/5/83 Memo for William Dircks from James Asselstine re: THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 1, STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR PROGRAM - N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION AND LICENSE AMENDME.!T (SECY 83-474) (1 page) 2.
1/14/83 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from Richard Ottionar ra:
Commission Aethorization Act, PL 97-415 (2 pages) 3.
1/19/83 Letter to Richard Ottinger from Carlton Kamerer re: Nine questions (1 page) 4.
2/3/83 Letter to Richard Ottinger from Nunzio Palladino re:
P.L.97-415 (8pages) 5.
3/2/83 Letter to Richard Ottinger from Nunzio Palladino re:
P.L.97-415 (9 pages) 6.
3/15/83 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from Alan Simpson, Gary Hart, and George Mitchell re:
"Sholly" provision (3 pages) 7.
3/17/83 NRC-SECY Form Dec. 80 Memo to Chilk from Commissioner Asselstine re: SECY-83-16B (1 page) 8.
3/24/83 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from George Mitchell re:
Reracking as it pertains to the Comission's proposed implamenting regu-lations for Sholly provision (2 pages) 9.
1/16/84 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from Morris Udall re:
Invitation to Commission to participate in oversight hearing on NRC's budget for FY 1984 and 1985 (2 pages)
- 10. 3/30/83 NRC-SCCY Fonn Dec. 80 Memo to Chilk from Commissioner Asselstine re:
10 CFR Part b0 - March 29,1983 Version (1 page)
I
- 11. 4/1/83 Memo to Gary Gilbert from Spiros Droggitis re:
Clarification of SECY-83-166 Vote (1 page)
- 12. 4/4/83 Memo for the Record from Samuel Chilk re: STAFF REQUIREfiENTS AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE (1 page)
- 13. 4/6/83 Memo for Commission from Joseph Fouchard re: PUBLIC ANNOUNCE-MENT OF SH0LLY AND TEMPORARY LICENSE AMENDMENTS (9 pages)
- 14. 4/22/83 Letter to Gary Hart from Nunzio Palladino ref:
"Sholly" provision in FY 82-83 (2 pages) l i
+
f F01A-84-148 (8th response)
' 15.
5/6/83 Memo for Commission from William Dircks re: STUDY Off SIGNIFICANT HARARDS (4 pages)
- 15. -6/24/83 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from John Heinz.re: Proposal by GPU to restart TMI Unit 1 (1 page)
- 16. 7/21 /83 Letter to John Heinz from Carlton Kamerer re: TMI Unit 1 (1 page)
- 17. 7/1/83 Memo for Samuel Chilk from James Asselstine re: SECY 83-249 OCONEE UNIT N0. 3 SPEllT FUEL P0OL EXPAflSION (1 page)
- 18. 7/12/83 NRC-SECY Fonn Dec. 80 Memo to Chilk from Asselstine re:
SECY-83-249 0C0f4EE UNIT N0. 3 SPENT FUEL P00L EXPANSI0fl (1 page)
- 19. 2/23/84 Statement by Commissioner James K. Asselstine (8 pages) 20.
Undated Additional Views of Commissioner Asselstine (3 pages)
- 21. Undated Views of Commissioner James Asselstine on the NRC Staff's No Significant Hazards' Consideration Determination on the TMI Unit 1 License Ameridment Application for Steam Generator Repairs (16 pages)
- 22. Undated Excerpts from Memo to Asselstine from Pat Davis, Legal Assistant to Asselstine subject: Legislative History of Sholly Amendment (3 pages) 23.
6/ 9/81 SECY-81-366 (40 pages) 24.
8/8/81 SECY-81-366A (74 pages) 25.
8/15/83 SECY-83-337 (40 pages) 26.
11/18/83 SECY-83-474 (130 pages) 27.
3/9/84 SECY-84-108 (11 pages) 28.
2/9/84 Statement by Commissioner James Asselstine (4 pages) u
- i y 0 ram 6 l\\ucear information anc Resource Service 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW. 4th Floor. Washington D.C. 20036 (202) 296 7552 March 1, 1984 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST f
Adminstration
~b'N8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission kgg af J y y Washington, D.C. 20555 7
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST To whom it may concern:
1 Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, as amended, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service requests the following documents regarding the application of the "Sholly Amendment" to the consideration of the Three Mile Island-1 Steam Generator operating license amendment.
Please consider " documents" to include reports, studies, test results, correspondence, memoranda, meeting notes, meeting minutes, working papers, graphs, charts, diagrams, notes and summaries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forms of written communication, including internal NRC Staff memoranda.
The documents are specifically requested from, but not limited to, the following offices of the NRC: Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD), Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). In your response, please identify which documents correspond to which requests set out below.
Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed 4
through the NRC related to:
- 1. The impact of the application of the "Sholly Amendment" no-significant-hazards-consideration determination on the TMI-1 Steam Generator operating license amendment to other operating license amendments currently under consideration by the Staff;
- 2. The impact of the application of the "Sholly Amendment" no-significant-hazards-consideration determination on the THI-1 Steam Generator operating license amendment to other operating license amendments which have received no significant hazards consideration determinations by the NRC Staff; hhh
- 3. The implications of the application of the "Sholly Amendment" no-significant-hazards-consideration determination on the TMI-1 Steam Generator operating license amendment to any or all operating license amendments;
- 4. Analyses of the "Sholly Amendment" and interpretations of its application to operating license amendments;
- 5. Instructions to the staff for making "Sholly Amendment" proposed and final no-significant-hazards-consideration determinations; and
+
- 6. Any other documents which could be construed to be directives, analyses or interpretations of NRC's current
" working law" with respect to "Sholly Amendment" no-significant-hazards-consideration determinations.
i The documents requested must be made available under the Freedom of Information Act and are not exempt under Exemption 5.
The Supreme Court recognized a distinction betweer pre-decisional documents, which are exempted, and post-decisional documents which are not exempted.
NLRB v.
j Sears. Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151-53.
The Court noted that it would be reluctant to consider " statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency" and " instructions to staff that affect a member of the public" to be exempt under Exemption 5.
Sears, supra.
This is consistent with numerous court interpretations that the FOIA's Exemption 5 does not exist to protect an agency's i
" secret law."
The statements made by the Office of General i
Counsel at recent Commission meetings demonstrate clearly that the counsel to the Commissioners believes that such a secret law is in effect.
This law is currently governing decisions made by the staff of the agency in interpretation
{
of the Sholly anendment and its implementing regulations.
Moreover, it has the effect of affecting many members of the public, namely those who may be deprived of representation of their interests in a orior hearing on an operating license amendment.
When such a hearing is being denied in favor of merely a right to a post bearing, it is not on the l
basis of existing law as written, but on the " secret" or
" working" law interpretation presently being utilized by the NRC Staff.
In our opinion, it is appropriate in this case for you'to waive copying and search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A) "because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public."
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a non-profit organization serving local organizations concerned about r
_. 3-nuclear power and providing information to the general 4
j-public.
~ Sincerely, f
j Nw M Nina Bell l
Nuclear Safety Analyst.
cc: File 4
l 2
1 I
k 1
6 i
i 1
1 f
1 1
i i
l i
I t
a I
4 J
--1,-
.-,-ei.
me_..,
+.r,,_-
y.
...y
<y,,
c
..~-,,,. -+,. _,.--,,
/
' *o UNil EU 5 & Ai t. -
- f. "
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
g 5, g mg.
V!ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555
,e
%,,,,, +#,
December 5, 1983 c FFICE OF THE COMMtsslONER MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
~
FROM:
James K. Asselstine %,..
SUBJECT:
THREEMILEISLAND,bNIT1(TMI-1)STEAMGENERATOR REPAIR PROGRAM - NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION AND LICENSE AMENDMENT (SECY 83-474)
~
I would appreciate receiving a list of the plants for which a license amendment has been issued in the past 5 years involving a steam generator modification or repair.
The list should include a descripti.on of the activity associated with the amendment, and an indication of whether a "no significant hazards" determination was made.
I would also appreciate the staff's judgment on the length of time a hearing would take on this TMI license amendment case.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal SECY OGC OPE e
9 i
d
\\Q )%
(
(
Congress of tfJe IMnitch Stateff jfpouse of.Representatibes Easfjington, D.C. 20515 January 14, 1983 1
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Dr. Pall'adino:
Approximately two years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission furnished the Congress with information which indicated that in the absence of temporary authority to issue operating licenses prior to the conduct or completion of any required hearing, severe economic penalties would result for several utilities and their ratepayers.
Relying on this information, Congress provided such authority in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act, PL 97-415.
As you know, delays have not materialized as projected, and the authority has proven to be unnecessary.
To aid the Committee in assessing the effect of this legislation, please respond to the following questions by January 21, 1983.
1.
Provide a list showing each nuclear reactor at which delay has been experienced between plant completion and initial criticality due solely to the administrative delays of the Commission.
Please indicate the duration and reasons for each such delay.
2.
For each of the fourteen reactors identified by the Commission in March, 1981, likely to experience delay in the issuance of an operating license which did not incur delay please provide en explanation of why the projected delay did not occur.
3.
Of those reactors issued an operating license, including a low-power license, since January 1,1981, did any experience problems which delayed power ascension as scheduled?
If so, identify the reactor, describe the problem, and explain why such problem was not detected during the review of the application for an operating license prior to the issuance of the (low-power) operating license.
j 4.
What actions has the Commission taken to improve its ability to detect problems such as those identified ir the response to Question 3, prior to the issuance of the operating license?
g4 b
899 dM i 19 73
[
(
e,
.,, d (, /%
y,on rrr#1 'skam
.(.
(I
.w.
2 l
5.
Identify-any nuclear reactor under construction which may
~
qualify _for application for a temporary operating license.
- 6.
Provide a description of the procedures inst'ituted by the Commission to verify-information and projected schedules provided by the applicant.
7.
For any reactor-identified in the response to Question 5, please provide-the date by.which the Commission staff.believe plant construction will be sufficiently complete to permit
_ (a) fuel loading, (b) initial criticality, (c) five percent power?
i 8.
For any reactor identified in the response to Question 5, please provide the dates of all meetings of the applicant and the Commission staff which occurred after July 1, 1982, concerning scheduling; together with a list of al.1 participants and the agreed-upon schedule, if any.
Provide the basis for any disagreement between the applicant and Commission staff on an estimated completion date, and any dissenting staff opinion and the basis therefor.
9.
Please identify any reactor for which delay is projected between construction completion and issuance of a low-power-j operating license during FY 1984 and FY 1985, together with the reasons for such delay.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
,.f{J$
V L'
i Richard L. Ottinger O
,w
--e-
-+
,-w.-
e
--n-e w
---v
+
h
-
- L(
I b> " ' * # Y a
d
'o k=
UNITED STATES i=
[g YUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOlT
[
g/g y g
WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 g
-- 9* * *df January 19, 1983 The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Ottinger:
The Commission has just received your letter of January 14, 1983, requesting answers to nine questions relating to reactor licensing delays over the past several years.. Your letter asked for responses by the day after tomorrow.
We regret that this is not possible.
The information you requested is not readily available in the format you requested. Responses to your questions must be compiled and reviewed by senior staff and Comission. We will try to do this as quickly as possible.
It is true that the Commission in requesting interim licensing authority from Congress two years ago cited projections showing the possibility of signifi-cant licensing delay. However, it is also true that during the nearly two years that the interim licensing legislation was under consideration by the Congress, the NRC was providing our principal oversight committees with monthly reports on the status of major licensing activities, including projected delays. These reports showed a steady reduction in the number of months of projected delay.
During budget hearings in both 1981 and 1982, the Comission testified as to the extent of the delays then projected noting that a substantial reduction in projected delay had resulted from a combination of actions taken administratively by the NRC and more realistic licensee projecticns of construction concletion dates. A more definitive discussion of these actions is containt.d in House Comittee on Energy and Comerce Report
~
97-132 dated March 3, 1982.
At the time of the Conference on the NRC authori-zation bill, the projected delay was zero.
The Commission is still preparing these licensing status reports on a quarterly basis at the continuing request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
A copy of the most recent report (showi_ng a total projected delay of 3 months) has,already been provided to your staff this week.
However, I am enclosing another copy for your convenience.
We will endeavor to respond to your specific questions as quickly as practicable.
Sincerely, 6_b 4k M
Carlton Ka ire or 9
Off'. t Congressio Affairs 4
~
Enclosure:
As stated Odk
.. / 2 fo 79_ _ _ _ -
_ f s"'Py UNITED STATES J
c C
/
5' S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Distribution:
RMattson k
'E W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20SSS Central Files RVollmer U*kn
/
SECY HThompson S,
4.,,
OPE PCheck Y
CFFICE OF THE WJDircks KJohnson CHAIRMAN JRoe (ED0 12678)
TRehm EDO 176%
GCunningham LBarry RDeYoung The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger HDenton/ECase United States House of Representatives PFine Washington, D.C.
20515 PPAS
Dear Congressman Ottinger:
This is a partial response to your letter of January 14, 1983 regarding the authority of the Commission, as contained in P.L.97-415, to issue temporary operating licenses. The information was not readily available in the format you requested, and we regret that we were not able to res-pond within your requested time frame.
In order to provide you with information as quickly as possible.we are enclosing answers to Questions 5 through 9 of your letter.
Responses to the remaining questions will be forwarded to you as soon as they are available.
f It is true that the Commission, in requesting interim licensing authority from Congress two years ago, cited projections showing the possibility of significant licensing delay.
However, it is also true that during the nearly two years that the interim licensing legislation was.under consi-deration by the Congress, the NRC was providing our principal oversight committees with monthly reports on the delays.
These reports showed a l
steady reduction in the number of months of projected delay.
During budget hearings in both 1981 and 1982, the Commission testified as to the extent lof the delays then projected, noting that a substantial reduction in pro-jected delay had resulted from a combination of actions taken administra-tively by the NRC and more realistic licensee projections of construction completion dates. A more definitive discussion of these actions is contained in House Committee on Energy and Commerce RepFt 97-132 dated l
March 3,1982.
At the time of the Conference on the NRC authorization bill the projected delay was zero.
We will endeavor to respond to the remaining questions you asked as quickly as possible.
W oer/
l Sincerely, 1
Cleared with all Cmrs' Offices by SECY C/R. Original signed by 4 AV l
(Cmr. Ahearne was unavailable to participate Nunzio J. Palladino
) (1/g/f i
in the final cover letter, his office had no
/
NJnzio J. Palladino l
. comment) Ref.-CR-83-7 ggj g.
Enclosure:
Originating Office: 'ED0/NRR l
[ 2 / 3 / (_ 3 s to Questio1s OCA d
..... -.Re s po n..5;6;
- 8; and-9 ~ ~ ~~SECY L '. -.... C...............O lc,ne,p
~ ~ -
m.
J4 y. u.....a d
(
mm
... 1Co mbi.
m /. '\\ y...
n
- c
/c. a.
o / n, fx A ch
- '~ ! wk 1
Question #5 Identify any nuclear reactor under construction which may qualify for-application for a-temporary operating license.
Response
Any reactor under construction for which the following events are completed in 1983 may qualify for application for a temporary operating license:
(1)
NRC Safety Evaluation Issued (2)
NRC Final Environmental Statement Issued (3) ACRS Letter Issued (4)
Staff Supplenental SER Responding to ACRS Letter Issued (5)
State, Local, or Utility Emergency Plan Filed (6
Construction Complete, and (7
ASLB Initial Decision Not Issued Using current schedules, as reported to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in January' 1983, the Shoreham reactor would qualify.
Reactors could be added or deleted from this " qualified" list depending on the actual completion dates of certain events.
For example, if the actual com-pletion date of the Shoreham facility should slip into 1984, it would no longer be qualified.
On the othe'r hand, for any reactor otherwise qualified, but for which the ASLB initial de' cision is delayed beyond the construciton g
completion date, then that reactor would qualify.
Reactors in this latter c.at.egory,which coul.d.potentially qualify for temporary operati.n.g license consideration due.to possible hearing delays include:
I Waterford 3 Comanche Peak 1 Midland 1/2 Byron 1 Perry 1 Since there is currently no projected delay between the scheduled completion of construction and licensing of these plants, Questions 7 throuab o are answered only for the Shoreham facility.
Any slippage in licen.
will be identified to the Congress in our quarterly reports on the status of major licensing activities.
o O
D e
.0uestion #6 Provide a description of the procedures instituted-by the. Commission to verify.information and projected schedules provided by the applicant.
Response
-Each near-term operating license (NTOL) applicant has been requested by the NRC to update its estimate of construction completion on a quarterly basis. To gain confidence that these estimates are realistic, the NRC is continuing, and,.in fact, expanding efforts to independently verify these estimates and the projected schedules supplied by the applicants.
The NRC regularly conducts site visits of nuclear planh construction sites to review the construction progress and rate of progress and to assess the planning and progress of the pre-operational test program.
These visits are conducted by NRC Caseload Forecast Panels consisting of one or more construction estimators, the Licensing Project Manager, the NRC Resident Inspector and a member of management from the Division l
of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
These visits are scheduled on the basis of the stage of licensing for each individual facility and on the probability of the facility to be affected by a i
regulatory delay.
Twenty-five plants are scheduled for site visits during the next nine months.
During these site visits, the NRC assesses the following progress indicators:
(a) The status of design engineering and procurement activities.
(b)
Progress in installation of bulk commodities such as large-bore piping, small-bore piping, pipe supports and hangars, electrical raceways (cable tray, conduits), electrical cable and termination of electrical circuits since the previous Caseload Forecast Panel assessment.
l (c)
Present installation rate of the bulk commodities itemized above.
(d)
-Projected installation rates of the bulk c'ommodities. itemized above considering any perturbations which may affect those rates.
(e)
A site walkdown by the panel to verify applicant estimates and assess any possible difficulties in maintaining the scheduled installation rates.
(f)
The effect of any required rework of systems and commodities.
(g)
The applicant's pre-operational testing program.
i (h)
Manpower loading on various construction activities.
With the information obtained during the site visit,.ttut Caseload Forecast Panel prepares an independent estimate of construction completion (including testing) using
- construction estimating practices and curves common to the nuclear industry.
A formal procedure for preparing this estimate has been prepared and is presently being reviewed by the NRC staff.
4 I
2-
'Ris'ponse to' Q6 In cases where the Caseload Forecast Panel assessment indicates a deviation of greater than approxiratel" six (6) months from the applicant's' estimate of construction completion, 3 meeting between NRC senior management and senior representatives of the ' applicant is scheduled to resolve these differences.
To date, this method has frequently resulted in the applicant involved agreeing that their estimates were too optimistic.
The NRC is committed to a continuing program of independently verifying applicant estimates of construction completion and will continue to resolve differences between applicant estimates and NRC estimates.
Applicart esti-mates are reported quarterly to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development as the basis for operating license reviews.
9
/
O 9
4 l
i
(
Ouestion U For any reactor identified in the response to Question 5, please provide the date by which the Comission staff believes plant construction will be suffi-ciently complete to permit (a) fuel loading, (b) initial criticality, (c) five percent power?
Response
Construction must be essentially complete for any reactor prior to authorizing fuel loading.
Generally, at that date the license that is issued authorizes fuel loading and operation up to 5% power.
For the Shoreham facility. -the staff believes that construction will be suffi-ciently comolete by June 1983 to permit issuance of an operating license.
Fer this reactor, initial criticality could then be achieved by July 1983 and 5", power operation by August 1983.
e 9
e 9
9 6
e 5
O 4
S a,-.,--
,,,.n-
~
Question #8 For any reactor identified in the response to Question f5, please provide the dates of all meetings of the applicant and the. Commission staff which occurred after July 1,1982 concerning scheduling; together with a list Provide the of all participants and the agreed-upon schedule, if any.
basis for any disagreement between the applicant and Commission staff on an estimated completion date, and any dissenting staff opinion and the basis therefor.
Response
r SHOREHAM On August 11 through J.ugust 13, 1982 the NRC staff met with the applicant, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo). The staff estimated a June 1983 date for fuel load while the applicant held to its December 20,1982 date.
Participants:
NRC LILCo W. Lovelace W. Uh1 J. Higgins E. Youngling R. Gilbert W. Museler an upper level management NRC staff /LILCo meeting was On September 27,1982 held.
In this meeting the applitant revised its estimate to late first 3
quarter 1983.
Participants:
NRC LILCo H. Denton W. Uh1 W. Dircks M. Pollock L. Barry T. Novak On November 22, 1982 an NRC staff /LILCo management meeting was held to discuss schedules.
The applicant continued to hold to a fuel load date of first quarter 1983, altho. ugh it was pointed out that many revia'* items r
remained to be closed out.
I
Participants:
NRC LILCo i
J. Allan M. Pollock R. Starostecki E. Youngling T. Martin W. Museler R. Gallo A. Schwencer I
S. Ebneter R. Gilbert E. Weinkam J. Higgins P. Hannet
.t h
El SHOREHAM On-January 10 thru January 13, 1983, the NRC staff met with the applicant and informed it that the NRC staff's estimate of fuel load for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is June 1983, at the earliest.
Participants:
NRC LILCO R. Gallo J. Rivello E. Greenman W. Museler
R. Caruso S. Richards W. Bateman A. Cerne C. Cougill III J..Higgins W. Raymond G. Rhoads C. Petrone On January 19, 1983, the applicant informed the ASLB that plant completion is estimated to be late second quarter / June 1983 at the earliest. The staff concurs with this estimate and there is no staff dissenting opinion.
6 6
6 1
e
9'
-Question #9 Please identify any reactor for which delay is projeeted between construction completion and issuance of a low-power operating license during FY 1984 and FY 1985, together with the reasons for such delay.
Response
No such delays are presently projected.
During FY 1984 and FY 1985 there are 18 reactors for which the applicant is projecting completion of plant construction.
The latest schedules provided to the House Committee on Appropriations indicate that Comission decision dates for these plants are scheduled to precede applicant construction completion dates, thus permitting timely issuance of a low-power license.
With the exception of four reactors for which the hearing is already com-plated or none was requested, the remaining 14 reactors are scheduled to have a hearing.
While every effort will be made to complete the hearing on schedule, delays may occur.
Additionally, for Catawba 1, the applicant informed us on January 19, 1983 that plant completion has been accelerated from November 1984 to May 1984.
Since our licensing review and hearing schedule was originally established based on the later date, all aspects of the. licensing process starting with the issuance of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report on February 6,1983 must now proceed without delay in order for the plant not to incup a delay in receiving a low-power license.
4 4
O I'
i L
L
.r c es.
ry'-
t b5 UNITED STATES O
$ i, j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 WUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
v
/
CFFICE OF THE March 2, 1983 CHAIRMAN 8
The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Ottinger:
I recently sent to you responses to some of the questions in your letter of January 14, 1983 regarding the temporary authority to issue operating licenses contained in PL 97-415.
Enclosed are our answers to the remaining questions.
Sincerely, 5'fgw Mk.
w-Nunzi J.'
lladino Chainnan
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions 1 thru 4
~
~
N D
l O'estion #1, l
Provide a list showing each nuclear reactor at which delay has been experi-enced between plant completion and initial criticality due solely to the administrative delays of the Commission.
Please indicate the duration and reasons for each such delay.
i
Response
f
.The Commission recognizes that delays in licensing of a plant that can be described as administrative occurred for those plants which were near construction completion at the time of the TMI accident.
For those few L
plants, a period of time did lapse before guidance could be provided on addi-tional TMI requirements.
Specific times associated with this type of delay are subjective to some degree.
However, the staff has had discussions with the management of each utility, and has also reviewed the matter with members of the staff experienced in evaluating plant status, in order to establish reasonable estimates for this delay. The following are the plants for which this delay i
occurred:
Plant Estimated Delay (Mos) l Sequoyah 1 3-4 i
North Anna 2 12-13 i
i Salem 2 6-7 l
I Since the issuance of the Farley)2 license in October 1980, no administr
}
delays of this type (TM1-related have occurred in licensing of plants.
l j
C I
One other facility, Diablo Canyon 1, experienced a delay. Because of a pro-l f
tracted hearing, which extended beyond the point when the utility considered i
plant construction to be complete. Diablo Canyon i experienced approximately i
1 a six-month delay (from March 1981 to September 1981) in receiving a low power license.
However, because of si nificant errors subsequently found l
in the seismic design of the facility which led to withdrawal of the low power license), the plant is not yet considered rea'dy for reinstatement of the operating license.
h Commissioner Ahearne adds that he "would have. preferred an answer in which l
staff explained the delay (both whether they are real and why they i
occurred).
The NRC has been reluctant to' address this issue.
A recent l
example:
the President of VEPCO announced that new NRC regulations priced North Anna 3 out of the market, and attributed $950 million of the $1.4 billion increase in the cost to new regulations.
I requested the staff's j
comments on this claim.
The EDO said the staff believes VEPC0 overstated the
)
costs, but that staff resources would have to be used to affirm or deny i
VEPCO's estimates.
I asked agreement from the Commission that this be done.
Although the Chairman supported this request, Commissioners Asselstine and i
Gilinsky opposed it.
Consequently I continue to doubt NRC and utility estimates of regulatory delay, and have not seen any sound analysis supporting the estimates."
l l
a
, Question #2' s
For'each of the fourteen mactors identified by the CIiirnission'in March 1981, likely to experience delay in the issuance of an operating license which did not incur delay please provide an explanation of why the projected delay did not occur.
Response-1 The table on the following page lists those plants and includes the following information reproduced from the March 1981 Bevill Report; the projected 2
]
construction completion date and the projected delay at that time. The pro-jected delays were contingent upon the plant being completed by the projected dates.
The table also includes the current projected completion date, or the actual completion date, as well as the actual delay or curnmtly projected delay.
r There are a number of reasons why the delays projected in the March 1981 Bevill Report did not occur.
First of all, not one of these plants was ready to operate by the applicants' completion date.
In many cases where a delay was projected, actual plant construction was not accomplished as then projected.
Also, the time scheduled for the hearing process was shortened by several factors, among which were amendments to the rules of practice, and a change to the immediate effectiveness rule which reduced the time between the ASLB 3
initial decision and the Commission decision from three months to one month.
4 In addition, the NRC instituted a Recovery Plan which resulted in expediting a number of reviews and in ensuring no unnecessary slippage of NRC schedules.
In addition, the Director of NRR was given the authority to issue low power i
licenses, including the authority to issue low power licenses in contested cases prior to the Commission's immediate effectiveness decision.
In order to reduce delays caused by FEMA review of emergency plans, the Director of NRR was authorized to issue low power licenses prior to final FEMA approval of offsite emergency plans as long as the staff had approved the applicant's onsite plan.
A few plants had additional specific reasons for their reduced l
delay.
These are given in footnotes to the table on the following page.
[
i I
r i
i
,y.m,__,,.-
,.y.m...
_ _... ~
._,,_y,.,
_.__,m,
, _.... ~ - ~
TCblo fa/ QU3tioa 2 RggjgjI
-March 1981 Bevill Report' Current Schedule Construction Estimated Delay Actual or l
1/
Completion (months)
Construction Projected
~
Plant NRC Appl.
NRC Appl.
Completion Delay (months) j San Onofre 2/3 10/81 6/81 6
10 C
2/82 0
l 5/
Diablo Canyon 1/2 3/81 1/81 11 '
13 C
3/83-0 i
2/
2'/
McGuire 1/2 1/81 1/81 11-11~
C 1/81 0
l 3/
3/
Shoreham 1 9/82 5/82 1
5 6/83-0-
Sumner 1 10/81 8/81 8
10 C
8/82 0
Susquehanna 1/2 3/82 6/81 8
17 C
7/82 0
Zimmer 1 4/82 11/81 3
8 9/83-0 Waterford 3 10/82 10/82 3
3 5/83 0
Comanche Peak 1/2 12/82 12/81 2
14 6/83 0
Watts Bar 1/2 8/82 11/81 0
1 8/83 0
1/ For a multiple unit site; data shown are for the first unit.
2/ An eleven month delay in the full power decision was projected due to contentions before the Board which were subsequently rejected. Low power
~
license issuance was 6/81; and full power license issuance was 7/81.
The plant experienced problems during initial testing and was not ready for a low power license before June 1981.
3,/ Applicant recently changed construction completion date to June 1983.
4/ Plant schedule has been impacted by construction deficiencies that resulted in the issuan:e of an, " Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending
~
Construction", on 11/12/82.
5/ Low power license suspended in Nov. 1981.
Present estimate for decision regarding reinstatement is March, 1983.
s e
f J
~
Questio'n #3 Of those reactors issued an operating license, including a low-power license, since January 1,1981, did any experience problems which delayed power ascension as scheduled?
If so, identify the reactor, describe the problem, and explain why such problem was not detected during the review of the application for an operating license prior to the issuance of the (low-power) operating license.
Response
The response to this question is provided in the following two tables. Table 1, below, identifies the plants that have experienced problems which delayed power ascension, lists the amount of the delay, and defines the principal, problem areas.
Table 2, on the following page, explains wty such problems were not detected during the review of the application prior to issuance of the low-power operating license.
Table 1 Delay in Achieving Principal Plant Full Power Problem Area Diablo Canyon 1 greater than 1 year QA Program Deficiency Salem 2 9 months Emergency Plans -
related requirements Grand Gulf 1 7 months (in reaching Deficiencies in 5*. power)
Surveillance Procedures San Onofre 2 6 months (est'd)
Hardware Malfunctions La Salle 1 5 months (est'd)
Hardware Malfunctions Sequoyah 2 4 months Hardware Malfunctions McGuire 1 2 months Hardware Malfunctions, Steam Generator Problem Summer 1 1 month (est'd)
Steam Generator Problem
up
+s=
Table 2 for Question 3 Response Why problem was not detected during review prior to issuance of the low power operating Problem license
- 1. 0A Program Deficiences Discovery of misapplication of NRC staff review, among other things, is vertical seismic floor response generally limited to detemining that sp:ctra for certain components, postulated seismic input values have systems and structures.
been enveloped and the acceptability of
-(Diablo Canyon) the design methodology.
Because of the depth of design and construction detail, the staff did not perform in-depth review of all applications of various response spectra used for the qualification of the many systems, components and structures.
- 2. Hardware Malfunctions
- a. Failure of Reactor Coolant The staff review for operating license Pump Seals. (San Onofre 2 &
centers on implementation of plat and Sequoyah 2) system design criteria. The staff review
- b. Malfunction of Control Rod of the initial test program ensures that Drive Latching Mechanisms.
sufficient tests are conducted to verify (San Onofre 2) that the plant can be operated in accord-
- c. Abnormal number of component ance with design requirements important leaks in (the reactor coolant to safety.
Specific hardware malfunctions system.
McGuire 1) of the type listed here are caused by material failures, by manufacturing and
- d. Unplanned outage for repair installation errors, or by operational of a damaged hydrogen cooler errors.
Such failures are difficult or in the main generator. The impossible to predict in advance. Detection hydrogen cooler was damaged by of such " break-in" type malfunctions prior water hammer during restoration to full power operation is one of the of secondary systems following objectives of the startup test program, an unsuccessful loss-of-offsite power test.
(McGuire1)
- e. Main generator exciter failed -
extensive repairs required.
(Sequoyah 2)
- f. Yalve malfunction in recircula-tion loop, and bearing wear in (ic uYre Y pu p 6
A
,[*
Table 2'fer Question 3 Response (Continued)
Why problem was not detected during review prior to issuance of the low power operating Problem license
- 3. Emergency Plans Delays in completing the This problem was detected during review development and FEMA approval prior to issuance of the low power of Emergency Response Plans.
operating license.
(Salem e)
- 4. Steam Generator Problem Power restrictions due to The staff audit review of this applicant's potential tube wear problem design did not include consideration of i(n Model D steam generator.
this aspect of the steam generator.
iicGuire 1 and Summer 1)
- 5. Deficiencies in surveillance Plant Technical Specifications which are procedures. (Grand Gulf) finalized just prior to licensing identify specific surveillance requirements. Post-licensing audit of the adequacy of the procedures used by the licensee revealed
, deficiencies not normally found in other licensee's documents.
9 F
4
~ '
9
~
~
Question #4
~
What actions has the Commission taken to improve its ability to detect problems such 'as those identified in the response to Question 3, prior to the issuance of the operating license?
Response
i The_most common reasons for delays encountered in achieving power operations are those associated with equipment malfunctions or other operational i
difficulties.
Such equipment malfunctions are difficult to predict in ad-vance.
Identification of system or equipment problems is one of the primary purposes of the start-up and preoperational test programs. Many of these malfunctions are identified during start-up tests which are scheduled j
to take place after licensing. The Staff does review the preoperational and start-up test programs prior to licensing to ensure that systems required i
]
for plant operation will _be appropriately tested. Additionally, the Regional inspectors review the results of the completed test programs prior to 4
j licensing.
t The fact that many of the equipment malfunctions are identified during j
preoperational test programs or during required surveillances reinforces J
the Commission's belief that exhaustive preoperational test programs are extremely important. Additional Staff efforts are in progress as a part of 1
the Human Factors program to identify potential areas for improvement in i
licensee preoperational test programs.
1 In an effort to minimize equipment malfunctions caused by operational errors.
(
j the Commission has implemented several initiatives to improve plant training, staffing, and procedures. The NRC reviews an applicant's staffing, training, i
qualifications of operators prior to licensing and determines on a case-by-i case basis whether additional experienced operators should be assigned to operating shifts during a licensee's initial start-up phase.
Similarly, the NRC has focused more resources on the review and development of an q
applicant's emergency, operating, and surveillance procedures to minimize the i
potential for operational errors.
j Finally, the Commission has taken actions to provide a higher assurance that the i
plant has been designed and constructed as expected.
This augmented quality i
assurance effort will help reduce unexpected equipment malfunctions and, I
thus, reduce unexpected delays in achieving power operation.
Elements of the I
current quality assurance improvement program include:
3 (a)
Organizational realignments within NRC have been made to combine within a single organization the functions of re-search, standards development and inspection program, develop-j ment for quality assurance at reactors.
(b) An applicant for an operating license is requested to perform i
a comprehensive self-evaluation of the effectiveness of the quality assurance program for design and construction.
In addition, the Chief, Executive Officer or his designee is now 1
required to certify, prior to issuance of an operating license,
{
that the facility has been designed, constructed, and tested in accordance with the Final Safety Analysis Report and other license commitments.
4
~
G
=
~
(c)
For erch new operatine licer.se applicatior., the NPC staff will ccrsitier whether therc is P. need fer acditional irspecticns of selected arers based nn an evaluation cf the project's in-spectier and enforcer:ent history.
(d)
Based on a cese-by-case review of the above evaluations'by the applicant and the NRC staff, en applicant may be requested to have an independent design t eview conducted.
(el The NRC will increase the resources allocated to the in-spection of reactors under construction by en additional 0.3 (in FY 1983) and 0.5 (in FY 1984) staff years per unit under construction. The NPC will also complete development and implementation of planned revisions to enhance the effective-ness of its inspection activities.
(f) The NRC will continue to interact with INPO in its development of industry initiatives, measure their effectiveness ard ad.iust the corresponding NRC actions to provide for effective use of both industry and NRC rescurces.
In addition to these actions, the NRC will cornence a long-term review for continuing evaluation of quality ard ouality assurance problems related to design, construction, testing and operatinns, and potential solutions to those problems and their ir. pact on the adequacy of FRC quality assurance policies and programs.
L-
~
an.,cg
(
=;.,";.=".:";;;""- "'-"1=.""
OI sNb n.mI. ama.
Fy{y !O.:3.5"=
9)Cnifeb States Senale COMMITTEC CN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBUC WORKS ao== m. vano an n oarry evarr o'arcToa WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 March 15, 1983 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing to you to express our concern about recent developments involving the Commission's proposed implementing
~
regulations for the recently-passed "Sholly" provision in the Fiscal Year ~1982-1983 NRC Authorization Act.
Specifically, we are concerned about.how the Commission may treat proposals to rerack spent fuel storage pools under these regulations.
As we understand the staff preposal currently before the Commission (SECY 83-16B), proposals to rerack spent fuel storage pools would be examined on a case-by-case basis and a determination made as to whether any given amendment poses "significant hazards considerations", based upon the " intrinsic circumstances" of each such case.
Earlier versions of the proposed rule (e.g., SECY 83-16 and 83-16A), which designated reracking in the rule itself as an example of an amendment that the Commission considers likely to involve "significant hazards considerations", have been modified to give the Commission this case-by-case flexibility.
We strongly oppose treatment of reracking proposals in this fashion, and urge the Commission to restore reracking in the rule itself as a specific example of an amendment that the Commission considers likely to involve "significant hazards considerations".
The Senate Committee could not have made more explicit its position that proposals to rerack spent fuel storage pools should not be treated as "no significant hazards considerations" cmendments.
As we stated very clearly in the Senate Report (S. Rpt.97-113) accompanying the "Sholly" provision, "[t]he Committee anticipates, for example, that, consistent with prior practice, the Commission's standards would not permit c 'no significant hazard consideration' determination for license amendments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools."
o C E f er*
l L<
Foncrnblo Nunzio J. 'OllCdint
('
Pcg3 Two
- 'This requirement was based, in part, on an exchange between Senator George J. Mitchell and then-Majority Counsel James K. Asselstine during the Committee's markup of the NRC Authorization bill.
The exchange, which follows, indicates that the NRC has consistently treated all reracking amendments as proposals that pose "significant hazards considerations":
Senator Mitchell:
There is, as you know, an application for a license amendment pending on a nuclear facility in Maine which deals with the reracking storage question.
And am I correct >in my understanding that the NRC has already found that such applications do present significant hazards considerations and therefore that petition and similar petitions would be unaffected by the proposed amendment?
Mr. Asselstine:
That is correct, Senator.
The Commission has never been able to categorize the spent fuel storage as a no significant hazards consideration.
As this exchange indicates, the NRC, without exception, has treated reracking as an issue that poses "significant hazards considerations", and we would fully expect the Commission to continue this long-standing policy in promulgating the "Sholly" implementing regulations.
In fact, as we noted earlier, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee specifically addressed the reracking issue and very clearly stated its position that reracking should not be treated as a "no significant hazards considerations" issue.
By doing so, and by further directing the NRC to promulgate criteria for making "no significant hazards considerations" determinations, the clear import of these dual directives is that, in promul-gating its criteria, the Commission should take whatever steps are necessary, such as designating reracking as a specific oxample in the rule itself, to ensure that "the Commission's standards would not permit a 'no significant hazards consideration' determination for license amendments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools."
We note with some concern a suggestion made during the February 22nd Commission meeLing that, since reracking proposals do not appear to fall under any of the criteria proposed by the staff for making such determinations, this failure to satisfy the criteria would warrant treating all such proposals as "no significant hazards considerations" amendments.
For reasons already stated. we strongly disagree with this logic.
To establish generic criteria, as the Commission proposes to do, and then conclude that proposals to rerack spent fuel storage pools do not appear to fit within any of the criteria, overlooks the clear expression of intent contained in the Senate Report that reracking, proposals not be treated as "no significant hazards considerations" amendments.
HonorCD10 Nunzio J. PallCdin2 Pcg3 Thrca
{
Morcov5r, aside from tha puralIy trchnical qusstion of whetner all reracking proposals pose "significant hazards
,considerations", we uhink that diere are compelling public policy reasons, not the least of which is the extensive public interest in such proposals, why the Commission should not treat reracking amendments as (no significant hazards considerations" amendments.
Accordingly, we urge'you to reexamine the Senate Report, where the reracking issue was addressed with great specificity, and we are confident that, upon doing so, the Commission will reach the same conclusions as those reached by the Committee when it considered this issue.
The Sholly amendment was adopted by the Congress for the very reasons first given by the NRC -in its request for such remedial legislation--to give the Commission the authority to approve license snendments that pose "no significant hazards considerations" without having to hold a prior public hearing, notwithstanding the pendency of,any request for such a hearing.
As we emphasized in the Senate Report, "the Committee expects the NRC to exercise its authority under this section only in the case of snendments not involving
~
significant safety questions."
The Senate did not intend that the Commission classify reracking as such an amendment.
The exclusion of reracking from the category of amendments that are likely to involve "significant. hazards considerations" and, equally importantly, the failure to cite reracking in the rule itself, rather than in the preamble to the rule, as a specific example of an amendment that the Commission considers
' likely to involve "significant hazards considerations" would, in our judgment, be clearly inconsistent with the intent of the Senate.
We thank you for your consideration of our views on this issue and look forward to working together with you as the Commission moves forward with its implementation of the "Sholly" provision.
Most sincerely, wKpr pGeorge J/ Mitchell y1. c),
Simpsdh Gary Rirt /
~ Alan ~K.
Chairman Ranking Mihority Member Subcommittee on Member Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Nuclear Regulation i
l e
4 y 7 7 9 g p y :t 0 N RESPONSE SHEET TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILK,-SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSION'ER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-16B - REVISED REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION ON (1) TEMPORARY OPERATING LICENSING ^ AUTHORITY AND (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIO.N THE "SHOLLY AMENDMENT")
- SECY-83-16 AND 83-16A APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN' NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
Apoi7tca^ L O'ITV3 %
c>"
13D7A JNW TWAP6 A rr*-
6 P &T< M /a3 c_ L (c E d s T ' flo L f
^~
i
/GW Q p 7ytG /JTFk/n hWAL SpbcL qc -['o LL bv.)
~
t h
-e SI6NAlURL
~3-/7-7] >
1 DAIL
' SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE.ALSO RESPOND TO.AND/OR. COMMENT ON.0GC/0P MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THis PAPER.
URC-SECY FORM DEC'. 80 1
+-
(OQQ
. K/ -
/~
JCnileb,$laica,Senale 33 l
.,:6 wAssmarew, o.e.
osio March 24, 1983 l
i The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino-I-
Chairman Nuclear-Regulatory' Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
- [
Washington, D..C.
20555 I
Daar Mr. Chairman:
4 2
i
-I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of j
March 23rd.
I appreciate your making the effort to know-i further my views on the question of reracking as'it perta. ins to the Cennission's proposed implementing regulations for the Sholly provision in the Fiscal Year 1982-1983 NRC Authorization Act.
As I stated 1Ln our conversation, I believe the Senate Co=mittee made explicitly clear its position that raracking i
should be listed in the rule as an example of an event that'
~
l poses significant hazards consideration.
The stipulation in the Senate Committee Report (No.97-113) represents an un-l-
equivocal signal to.the-Commission which was in no way j
contradicted or opposed in the House or Conference Reports.
{
The letter of March 15 signed by myself and Senators Simpson and Hart clearly defines the basis for the unified
)
Senate Committee position on the matter.
Moreover,-the I
letter expressly reflects our. opposition to the Commission's l
proposed case-by-case approach to raracking (e.g. SECY 83-16B) or to any other approach which may allow a reracking e.se to a
j be treated as posing no significant hazards consideration.
4 l
I would also reiterate that, should the Commission decide l
to exclude from the rule raracking as an example which poses l
significant hazards consideration, I will closely consider i
introducing legislation which would mandate this requirement by law.
Such legislation would reaffirm for the Commission the determination already made by the Senate in the' Committee Reoort, that the Commission should treat raracking as posing a 'significant hazards consideration.
i i
1 i
u l
1 t.
_.. ~. _. _,
(~
.e The-Honorable Nunzio J. 'Palladino March 24, 1983 Page two Again, I appreciated the opportunity t_o discuss this matter with you.
I will look forward to reviewing the daliberations of the Comission o'n the Sholly rule.
Sincerely, l
Q Ge rge J. Mitchell United States Senator M
1 6
I e
e l
i e
6 q
D 6
e e
D O
-