ML20008F562
| ML20008F562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1981 |
| From: | Chappell B HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104210248 | |
| Download: ML20008F562 (2) | |
Text
-
CILI. hHAPPELL.
. e e
==r==r e-mus.
. f,. r. ,_ ,
)
m, - , _ _ Oshn. ,samson 33870 W m D.c. aosts <-3 ._
n <-m Congress oltf)t t!%mttb htated e
o
)
4,raoemno,. %ottie of Representatibes ( * )*= = **
" ~L"'"' IEashington,D.C. 20515 ** **E_"""';l",,
=r owmict o, cowuma w ,
y
<-n-March 3, 1981 '
r Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: NRC - Inclusion of the Offshore Power System's Application in the Proposed Rule Currently Under Consideration for Near-Term Construction Permit / Manufacturing License Applications
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
In a letter dated February 24, 1981. to the Members of your Comission, Mr. A. R. Collier, President of Offshore Power Syste=s, outlined the basis for including his application for a Manufacturing Lic.anse within the rules presently under consideration for proceeding with pending Construction Permit and Manufacturing License applications.
Attached, for you- ready reference, are the four questions on the Offshore Power Systems situation which I posed in conju*.ction with the Hearing held by the House Appropriations Subco=dttee on Energy and Water Development on February 19, 1981.
It has now come to my attention that the Comission is scheduled to discuss this basic issue at a meeting to be held on Thursday, March 5, 1981, or ,
soon thereafter. ,"
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about this matter and want to be informed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes any action that would not conEinue to include the Offshore Power Systems application. -
. With kind regards, 1
Sincerely,
- -s1/
) Bill .appell
,/ Congress..u n BC:bos Enclosure 810.4 2'10 $YT' W+
, 8 I < ,.-\
- 1. I understand that Offshore Power Systems of Jacksonville, Flcrida has spent more than $185 million in 8 years in the belief that the Commission.
.1 Regulations,10 CFR 50 Appendix M, would 3, remain consistent for all light.
~ water reactors. The Atomic Safet,y abd Licensing Board has completed its review of the Offshore Power Systems application, except for post-Three Mile Island matters. Why then does the Commission feel that there is no
~
need to proceed'with the manufacturing license at this time? Isn't this tantamount to a denial of the manufacturing license?
- 2. Offshore Power Systems is the only applicant in the near term construction permit / manufacturing license group to have submitted responses to the post-TMI requirements in the NRC's NUREG 0660 (July, 1980) . What progress has been made toward completing the review of the Offshore Power Systems submittal and when will the review by completed?
- 3. The Ccmmission is encouraging standardization. Why then is the Commission considering indefinitely delaying a decision on the manufacturing license p q
. when the Offshore Power System's plant represents the most fully standardized
{ approach in compliance with the Commission's regulations? -
l l
1 -
- 4. Bearing in mind that Appendix M to 10 CFR 50 is the manufacturing license l option and, by its very nature, does not require a specific utility customer or site to be specified in the application, how can the Commission j
justify delaying the review by insisting that a customer be identified in violation of existing regulations?
l
[ -
l L ,
.o