ML13304B030
| ML13304B030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mccandless A Riverside County, CA, Board of Supervisors |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106030432 | |
| Download: ML13304B030 (8) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-361/362 LPDR!
PDR NSIC TERA LB#3 Files HDenton Ce m ass 0
DEisenhut RTedesco FMiraglia HRood JLee (w/cy of incoming)
SCavanaugh (NRR-81-278)
EHughes (w/cy of incoming)
LBerry PPAS Sfanauer RMattson TMurley RVollmer BSnyder 810603 0RS%
OFFICEI DATE
.~
SURNAMEO DATE NRC FORM 318(10/80) NRCMO240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY UP1980-329-82
MAY 2 8 INt A. A. McCandless, Chairman Riverside County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. California 92501
Dear Chairman McCandless:
The April 28, 1981 resolution (81-164) of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors supporting the licensing of the San Onofre 2 and 3 nuclear power plants has been referred to me for reply.
I am pleased to provide the following information regarding nuclear power plant licensing in general, and licensing of San Onofre 2 and 3 in particular.
Since the TMI-2 accident, a significant amount of the NRC resources have been concentrated on identifying the lessons to be learned from that accident and the associated requirements that are necessary and sufficient for the continued operation of licensed facilities and for the issuance of new operating licenses.
That effort culminated with the issuance of the NRC's TMI Action Plan, approved in June 1980.
The development of that document and the NRC's increased attention to the safety in the 70 operating reactors took so much of our attention and our resources that we were unable to license new plants for a year after the accident. Following the issuance of the Action Plan, new operating licenses were issued to Sequoyah and North Ahna units late last summer, to Farley Unit 2 in March of this year, and to Salem Unit 2 in May of this year.
Currently, the overall picture is one of a licensing process that is returning to predictability at a considerably enhanced level of safety. However, the implementation of this enhanced level of safety has raised a number of potential new issues in the contested hearings for both operating licenses and construction permits around the country. Some of these units were substantially complete at the time of the Three Mile Island accident or have been completed since then.
Thus, we do face a situation in which, for the first time, our hearings are or will be continuing for a significant number of plants that will be complete and ready to operate before the hearings conclude.
This situation is an indirect consequence of the TMI accident, which required a re-examination of the entire regulatory structure.
We are not satisfied with the present situation and we are working to find ways to accelerate the hearings on these plants whose continued idleness prevents a substantial invest ment from benefiting either the consumers or the operating utilities.
F77 MAY 2 9
-2 To that end, major improvements in the licensing process are underway or being considered. These improvements include:
Expedited and rescheduled review by the NRC staff for plants in the short term category--those presently complete and those to be completed in 1981 and 1982.
Increased efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent Commission and Appeals Board review. The time now being taken between issuance of the supplemental staff evaluation report and initial decisions by licensing boards averages 18 months.
The NRC believes it can compress that time to about 10 months by tightening up the times allowed for each part of the prehearing process and by providing firmer time management of the whole process. The Commission is publishing for public comment proposed changes to its rules which would accomplish this.
Changes in the review process the Commission itself exercises over these cases have been adopted which will save at least two months in each case that has been in hearing.
Early completion of NRC staff review for plants to be completed in 1983 and beyond. This will require better scheduling of reviews and increased staff resources applied to casework.
Some staff resources can be redirected by deferring lower priority work and shifting some work to other NRC offices.
'Before making such a change, the Commission will carefully review the impact on other essential safety-related activities.
One further step to be tonsidered is legislation to authorize the Commission to issue limited, interim operating-licenses before completion of hearings where all applicable safety requirements have been met.
In summary, we are confident the actions we have taken and those we will take will provide major improvements in licensing schedules without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety.
With regard to licensing of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, the staff has completed the major part of its review. Staff safety evaluations were issued on December 31, 1980, February 6, 1981 and February 25, 1981.
The review of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was completed on March 12, 1981. A supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report addressing issues identified by the ACRS and the remaining outstanding issues is in preparation and is scheduled to be issued in early May. The hearing on this project is scheduled to begin on June 15, 1981.
MAY 2 9 1981
-3 We appreciate your interest in the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon projects. Please be assured that the NRC is taking every reasonable action to expedite the.licensing process, consistent with our commitment to ensure the public health and safety.
Sincerely Original signed by Darrell G. Eisenhut Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTrON:
SEE NEXT PAQE.
OFFICE4 ^DL:LB#3 DL:AD/L DL:DIR SURNAMEw
.a CO.
.D.
DATE) 5181 5/
8 8
5 1
NRC FORM 3 o18 (10/80 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1980-329-824
PLEASE REVIEW THE DUE DATE IEDIATELY If the due date does not allow adequate time to respond to this ticket, you may request a.
revised due date. The request must include a valid justification and be submitted through your correspondence coordinator to the NRR mail room. Such requests for green tickets must be made within 3 days after assignment.
Requests for revision of yellow ticket due dates may be made, with justification, through the weekly WITS update.
The revised due date, if approved by PPAS, will be used to track division correspondence completion schedules.
FROM:
DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED
,O<'
'MEMO REPORT OTHER ORIG.:
OTHER ACTION NECESSARY CONCURRENCE DATE ANSWERED NO ACTION NECESSARY COMMENT'.
BY CLASSIF-:
POST OFFICE FILE CODE:
REG NO.:
DESCRIPTION: (Must Be Unclassified)
REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE subi ts resolutioh requesting repeal of section 301 of j1asitpt industrial isenhut 5/19 cc:
Case fuel ac, urging jai t lcensing enton dvelopmei~
.f alternative energy 1
PPAS ENCLOSURES:
V K
3 Vattson murley
~ o11mer Sn der 7r appro.
actoon REMARKS u S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORM NRC 326S MAIL CONTROL-FORM,"
FROM:
DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED NO.:
AA4,. McCandless
$12/1
/1/1 I-1-7 LTR.
MEMO:
REPORT:
OTHER:
TO:
ORIG.:
CC:
OTHER:
- i. DONCOR ACTION NECESSARY O
CONCURRENCE DATE ANSWERED:
NO ACTION NECESSARY COMMENT BY:
CLASSIF.:
POST OFFICE FILE CODE:
REG. NO.:
DESCRIPTION: (Must Be Unclassified)
REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE submits resolution requesting repo of section 501 of p~atp induestrial Rise but C/9 c:; Case fuel act,
- urging plant lienstry Dentm 4 development of amlternative eonergy
- 1.
PPAS ENCLOSURES:
Ur o
Z.
- 4. Murley
___________.__5.__Votheri
- 6. Spde tor approp. ancd4on REMARKS:
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORM NRC-326S MAIL CONTROL FORM (6-76)
FROM:
DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED NO.:
LTR.
MEMO:
REPORT:
OTHER TO:
ORIG.:
CC:
OTHER:
I. Denton ACTION NECESSARY CNCURRENCE NSWERED:
NO ACTION NECESSARY El FCOMMENTBY CLASSIF.:
POST OFFICE FILE CODE:
REG. NO..
DESCRIPTION: (Must Be Unclassified)
REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE subits resolution requesting repeal of section 301 of p&antpt industrial Bisenhut
/19 ce Case f'e act, & orging plant licensing Deaten 4 developumt of alIternave eer2Y I.-
pp ENCLOSURES:
2
- 2.
Malnoer for approp.
actm REMARKS:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORM NAC 326S MAIL CONTROi FORM e(-76)