ML20136A548
| ML20136A548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1985 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Finalyson A A. NEIL FINLAYSON, LTD. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136A553 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511190551 | |
| Download: ML20136A548 (6) | |
Text
>
.7
/
/
gyg h
/'
Distribution: EDO (Green / Priority) Ticket No. 001118
' ,{ N ncomingy JDavis Local PDR w/ incoming RMinogue EDO# 001118 JTaylor ED0 Reading File VStello W. Dircks Denton/Eisenhut (1 copy)
TOSB R/F JFunches JLyons SECY (1 copy OCA Lisa Mulley, P-428 #001118 Mr.A. Neil Finlayson, PE 24 Court Street Belfast, ME 04915
Dear Mr. Finlayson:
i
-This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1985. In your letter you provided some excellent insights on the state of the U.S. nuclear power industry and some sug'gestions to improve the acceptance of nuclear
' power plants by the general public. You suggested that nuclear power plants should be situated close to large cities in order that the thermal i
discharge from the plant could be used as a heat source to meet some of the metropolitan area's needs. Additionally you proposed that the operation of all commercial nuclear power plants be turned over to the U.S. Navy. In your proposal, the utilities would retain ownership and control over scheduling l and other related areas of operation. While the measures you have proposed would have to be undertaken by the nuclear industry rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your proposals.
First, the concept of using nuclear power plants as cogeneration facilities
- was to be used at the Midland facility in Michigan. The utility has indefi-1 nitely suspended construction at that facility but had planned to provide production steam to be used at a nearby Dow Chemical plant. This concept was acceptable to the NRC and we would review other such requests in the
, future for their acceptability.
Second, while it is tirue that Navy nuclear. power operators are trained in all the rigid concepts-necessary for safe operation of nuclear power plants, the utilities, in conjunction with industry groups such as INPO and NUMARC, also have excellent training programs. The nuclear industry, as a whole, has made very good progress in operator training since the accident at Three Mile Island. Additionally, a significant number of nuclear power plant operators have come from the Navy, bringing with them many of the philosophies and practices that have contributed to the Navy's excellent nuclear safety record.
To put your proposal into action would require industry acceptance, congres-sional action and a change to the NRC rules and regulations. Moreover, i
the question of legal responsibility for the actions of the operators would j J also need to be addressed, j
jyV' While the problems discussed above are probably not insurmountable, the i actions you have proposed would not be properly proposed by the regulating
{9
agency but would be more properly pursued through the industry itself.
Again, let me thank you fo: the insights-provided and I welcome any further insights you may wish to share.
Sincerely Original siced by Darroll G. Eiaonhut NaroldR.Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Rep. Olympia J. Snowe John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 0
yM PP OSB S:TOSB NR N JL :kb JFunches DE AH 11/ /85 11/l,/85 '11/p/85 R1/g/85
NOV 131985 Distribution: EDO (Green / Priority) Ticket No. 001118 NRC PDR w/ incoming LocaliPORi/ incoming <
ED0# 001118 EDO Reading File W. Dircks Denton/Eisenhut (1 copy)
TOSB R/F JFunches JLyons SECY (1 copy OCA Lisa Mulley, P-428 #001118 Mr.A. Neil Finlayson, PE 24 Court Street Belfast, ME 04915 i
Dear Mr. Finlayson:
This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1985. In your letter you provided some excellent insights on the state of the U.S. nuclear power industry and some suggestions to improve the acceptance of nuclear power plants by the general public. You suggested that nuclear power plants should be situated close to large cities in order that the thermal discharge from the plant could be used as a heat source to meet some of the metropolitan area's needs. Additionally ycu proposed that the operation of all commercial nuclear power plants be turned over to the U.S. Navy. In your proposal, the utilities would retain ownership and control over scheduling and other related areas of operation. While the measures you have proposed would have to be undertaken by the nuclear industry rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your proposals.
First, the concept of using nuclear power plants as cogeneration facilities was to be used at the Midland facility in Michigan. The utility has indefi-nitely suspended construction at that facility but had planned to provide production steam to'be used at a nearby Dow Chemical plant. This concept was acceptable to the NRC and we would review other such requests in the future for their acceptability.
Second, while it is true that flavy nuclear power operators are trained in all the rigid concepts necessary for safe operation of nuclear power plants, the utilities, in conjunction with industry groups such as INP0 and NUMARC, also have excellent training programs. The nuclear industry, as a whole, has made very good progress in operator training since the accident at Three Mile Island. Additionally, a significant number of nuclear power plant operators have come from the Navy, bringing with them many of the philosophies and practices that have contributed to the Navy's excellent nuclear safety record.
To put your proposal into action would require industry acceptance, congres-sional action and a change to the NRC rules and regulations. Moreover, the question of legal responsibility for the actions of the operators would also need to be addressed.
t While the problems discussed above are probably not insurmountable, the actions you have proposed would not be properly proposed by the regulating i
l 1
L
agency but would be more properly pursued through the industry itself.
Again, let me thank you for the insights provided and I welcome any further insights you may wish to share.
Sincerely Original si e,-a by Darrell G. Ei cnhut Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Rep. Olympia J. Snowe John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 0
< M PP OSB S:TOSB NR N JL :kb JFunches DE AH 11/ /85 11/k/85 11/g/85 (rll/g/85
! l
. . .-. n ..
7
, f 'o,, UNITED STATES y 3 ,c g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n- / :: E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%J &
EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM: DilE: 11/06/85 EDO CONTROL: 001118 DOC DT: 10/10/85 A. NEIL FINLAYSON FINAL REPLY:
TO:
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO: 85-905 DENTON DESC: ROllTING:
VIEWS CONCERNING BOTH REGULATING THE NUCLEAR DAVIS INDUSTRY AND PROMOTING ITS BENEFICIAL USES MINOGUE TAYLOR DATE: 10/23/85 ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DFNTON
- ~ ____
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED: 10/23/85 S ACTION: PPAS/TOSB LYONS ROUTING: DENTON/EIS /0 !dY !
PPAS
( 7 cm T ickt OO \\\b O u t ', \\\0bk%5 A ss%n Tb ' . /W I
I
A Neil Finlays:n k -
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET SECY NUPBER: 85-905 LOGGING DATE 10/21/85 0FFICE OF THE SECRETARY -
ACTION OFFICE: ED0 AUTHOR: A. Neil Finlayson AFFILIATION: Belfast, ME LETTER DATE: 10/10/85 FILE CODE
' ADDRESSEE: Palladino
SUBJECT:
Views concerning both regulating the nuc industry and promoting its beneficial uses ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: Chairman SPECIAL HANDLING: None FOR THE COPHISSION Champ SIGNATURE DATE:
Rec'd Off. EDO Date..../ o.' N ^
n . . .. . X:L.kh. ...
i, .
EDO --- 001118 o.