ML16340B486

Order Directing NRC to Provide Status Rept on Issuance Date of Suppl 12 to SER

ML16340B486
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/10/1981
From:	Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8103130406
Download: ML16340B486 (22)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY Cof1MISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Jerry R. Kline 8po Ipp Ol ooo(ffED ll user'ARf $ 19M p-Offlce of the Secretary Pocketing & Senrice Branch In the Matter of:

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1

5 2)

Docket Nos.

0-275 OL March 10 1981 ORDER RELATIVE TO ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENT 12 TO THE SER In the prehearing conference on January 28 and 29, 1981, the S

announced that Supplement 12 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) would not be issued on March 31 as previously predicted.

It was stated that Supplement 12, under stood to be the last Staff document relative to the full power operating license, appeared to be slipping to May or June.

The Staff is requested to give a status report on issuance date of the document and to inform the Board.if there are other matters still pendinq with the Staff relative to the full power operating license.

It is this 10th day of March 1981 ORDERED That the requested report be furnished as promptly as possible.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sg03 g30 li beth S.

Bowers ADMINISTRATIVEJUDGE

f88t s t RAN a34NS t

1l

~

~ ~<<f1 wg) vs<mg.q>>,

oalas8 8 gni;Q."oG f.JV.'~~3

~(pi i gj'Jj)> )$Q

/ I ~f'i

~ '

'P l<<E

MAR 25 1S81 The Honorable Don Bailey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515 t~ ~$

I'<lie p p set NtICt~g g m~~<~~~ew Dear Congressman Bailey:

Your letter of February 18, 1981 to ter.

has been referred to me for reply and I P'ohn F. Ahearne rega o Canyon am pleased to make this response.

Our responses to your questions are provided below:

l}uestion (1):

What remains to be done to issue an operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant7

Response

(1):

Diablo Canyon is one of the Near Term Operating License (NTOL) plants.

Its operating license will be issued in two stages in the following order:

1-Fuel load and low power (not to exceed five percent of full power) tests license.

2-Full power license.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has filed a motion last year with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for authorization to load fuel and conduct low power testing prior to final Commission action with respect to PG8E's application for a full-term operating license.

The NRC staff subsequently issued a suppTement to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report which addressed additional issues related--to.

new Commission requirements arising from the Three tlile Island (TthI) accident.. Inte'rvenors and Governor Brown have sought to re-open the record on Diablo Canyon with respect, to these matters.

The ASLB has admitted some issues as a result of Intervenors'rguments and has scheduled hearings on THI-related issues to commence on May 19, 1981.

Assuming that.

existing Commission procedures remain unchanged, a decision is not expected until February of 1982.

Currently, all parties to the proceeding are seeking Commission review of the ASLB decision to conduct further hearings on THI-related issues.

Early in 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board (ASLAB) reopened the record on earthquake design and facility security issues.

The Appeal Board conducted evidentiary hearings on these matters in October and November 1980 and is expected to issue a decision on those issues within the next month.

Mith regard to the full power license, the NRC will issue a supplement to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report on Tt11 issues related to full power and several remaining other issues.

This supplement is scheduled to be completed this month.

This will complete the NRC staff actions with respect to full power license.

A Commission decision on full power operation is not expected Q

before 11arch of next year.

81040> 0( 7

l Ig I'

Y

(

f t

t P

2 guestion (2):

Response

(2):

What is the schedule of activities leading to a licensef The schedule has been furnished along with the issues in our response to question (1).

guestion (3):

Response

(3):

What organization or person has responsibility to accomplish each required activity by the scheduled date?

What controls are in place to control schedule performance?

The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) is responsible for completing the SSERs and for providing testimony at the hearings held by ASLB and/or ASLAB.

The NRR has a steering group to prioritize the resolution of various issues.

Once an issue or a plant is given priority, a schedule for target dates of licensing review milestones up to and including the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report and weekly meetings are utilized by management to eliminate or minimize schedule delays.

One of,.the pacing items in this process is the inter-action with the utility which has to provide responses to

---issues raised by the NRC staff in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10).

Activities related to the hearing and/or appeal proceedings and their schedule are under the control of the ASLB and/or ASLAB.

These Boards are inde-pendent bodies appointed by the Commission.

guestion (4):

Response

(4):

f Explain any differences in the requirements for Diablo Canyon from those for the three plants designated "Near Term Operating License" plants a year ago.

The Commission has issued new dated requirements applicable to all nuclear power plants as a result of the THI accident.

The number of requirements to be completed by a utility applying for an operating license for a plant increases as time progresses.

Thus, there are some differences in the number of the dated requirements now required vis-a-vis those required a year ago.

Furthermore, the dated requirements must be met at the specified date for all operating plants or prior to fuel loading for those applying for operating licenses unless certain relief is found to be justified by the staff.

In addition, hearings for Diablo Canyon have been more vigor-ously contested than were the NTOL plants and have, therefore, taken longer to 'conclude (the proceedings for Sequoyah and Salem 2 nuclear plants were not contested).

North Anna Unit 2 was an NTOL plant, but hearings were held for both North Anna Units 1

and 2 (prior,to completion of North Anna Unit 1)

f d

~ ~

and decisions were rendered by the Boards in t1arch 1978.

The de-cision allowed North Anna to operate at full power and Tt1I issues were not contested.

I trust that this information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, (Signed) Niiliam J. Qircgs William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

0

~~

JMa

~r

~t I

h Ta I

I

~ ~

a I

V Question (2):

What is the schedule of activities leading to a license?

Response

(2):

The schedule has been furnished along with the issues in our response to question (1).

Question (3):

What organization or person has responsibility to accomplish each required activity by the scheduled date?

What controls are in place to control schedule performance?

Response

(3):

The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ONRR) is responsible for completing the SSERs and for providing testimony at the hearings held by ASLB and/or ASLAB.

The ONRR has a steering group to prioritize the resolution of var ious issues.

Once an issue is given priority, the Bevill schedule and weekly meetings are the management tools utilized to meet target dates and to minimize schedule delays.

One of the pacing items in this process is the interaction with the utility which has to provide responses to issues raised by the NRC staff in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulation (Title 10).

The ASLB and the ASLAB are, independent bodies appointed by the Commission.

Question (4):

Explain any differences in the requirements for Diablo Canyon from those for the three plants designated "Near Term Operating License" plants a year ago.

Response

(4):

There are no differences in the requirements for Diablo Canyon from those for the three plants designated NTOL plants a year ago.

The proceedings for Sequoyah and Salem 2 nuclear plants were not contested.

Hearings were held for Nor th Anna Units 1 and 2 and decisions were rendered by the boards on t1arch 1, 1978.

The decision allowed North Anna to operate at full power and TI11 issues were not contested.

I trust that this information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DL:

/L RLTEDESCO OFFICEI SURNAME/

DATEf>

.DL '..LBg3$.....

KJabbourgwt" ".. Q)Sstead 3/.P $81.....

3($ (81 F

t'

~

a....

~.

81 DE' t

3

/81

..D.IR.

R 5

>/(q/8>

g...EgO...........

...Bi.r.cps........

3/3"/81

....0~CA 3/7 /81

'NRC FORM 318 IIO/80) NRCM 8240 OF ICIAL RECORD COPY A USGPO: I980-329-82l

g ~ Ie

'1 e

~

g

~

~

ae ~

>f II ee

~

l'%1

~

1 f$

4 II 1

~

g ke 1

.". e ~e,

~.

I e

1

~

eI

~

1 4

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket file 50-275/323 LPDR PDR NSIC TERA LB/f3 File EDO Reading HRDenton EGCase DGEisenhut RPurple

Attorney, OELD OCA (3)

GErtter (10175)

SCavanaugh (10175)

EHughes A/D Secretary FJMi rag 1 ia KJabbour BPaul Cotter (ASLB)

IE (3)

SECY (3) (881-0220)

WJDircks KCornell TRehm Shapar LUnderwood PPAS SHanauer DRoss TMurley BSnyder RVollmer HThompson MLicitra OFFICE/

SURNAME/

OATE f>

~ ~ ~ 0

\\ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 110/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 0 USGPO," 1980-429 824

t e

Question (2):

Response

(2):

What is the schedule of activities leading to a lice e?

The schedule has been furnished along with the i ues in our response to question (1).

Question (3):

What organization or person has responsib ity to accomplish each required activity by the scheduled ate?

What controls are in place to control schedule perf mance?

Response

(3):

The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu ation (ONRR) is responsible for completing the SSERs and for roviding testimony at the hearings held by ASLB and/or A

AB.

The ONRR has a steering group to prioritize the resolution f various issues.

Once an issue or a plant is given priority, schedule for target dates of licensing review milestones up to a including the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report and we ly meetings are utilized by management to eliminate or minimi schedule delays.

One of the pacing items in this process is t interaction with the utility which has to provide response to issues raised by the NRC staff in accordance with t Code of Federal Regulation (Title 10).

Activities relat to the hearing and/or appeal proceedings and their sche e are under the control of the ASLB and/or ASLAB.

These oards are independent bodies appointed by the Commiss n.

Question (4):

Response

(4):

Explain y differences in the requirements for Diablo Canyon from tt se for the three plants designated "Near Term Operating Licen e" plants a year ago.

T Commission has issued new dated requirements applicable to 1 nuclear power plants as a result of the Tt1I accident.

The number of requirements to be completed by a utility applying for an operating license for a plant increases as time progresses.

Thus, there are some differences in the number of the dated requirements now required vis-a-vis those required a year ago.

Furthermore, the dated requirements must be met at the specified date for all operating plants or prior to fuel loading for those applying for operating licenses unless certain relief is found to be justified by the staff.

In addition, the proceedings for Sequoyah and Salem 2 nuclear plants were not contested.

North Anna, Unit 2 was an HTOL plant, but hearings were held for both North Anna Units 1 and 2 (prior to completion of North Anna Unit 1)

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE DISTRIBUTION:

See next page,

~'

N WJ I/

ll 0

N

\\

1 EDO ROUTING SLIP e:

iginator:

EDO No.:

Incoming Date:

1 1

ACTION:

Signature

- Ltr

SUBJECT:

Ltr to Rep. Bailey fm Dircks re licensing process CONCU RENCES RECEIYED:

EL Olmstead 3/3/

NRR Denton 3/19 NMSS RES IE SD MPA SP IP cga p~sf CON.

EEO ADM AEOD I

I I

I I

I GC PE.

I PA I IA I

I I

I I

ACB COMHENTS:

/ / Admin. check holding copies R

. Cornell I ~I

( PAA'I sM Cs r.gZ~

hack to g-g Rehm Back to / /

Rehm

/ / Cornel 1

4; Return to ACB

+ /

Courier

~/

OCA - Bring to attention of:

11

Hgrf, Ding el 1 U~

t ff

0 4

I

F ROiYI:-

Rep.

Don Bailey ACTION CONTROL COMiPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGViENT INTERltv'I REPLY DATES CONTROL NO~

DATE OF DOCUMENT TO Ahearne FINALREPLY FILE LOCATION PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:

CHAIRtv1AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OTHER:

DESCRIPTION g LE R

I tJlat:,0 Q

R POR

..ER SPECIAL INSTRU i IONS OR REM'Rt'S

'RIORETY questions concerning the licensing process DOCUMENT/COPY NO.

iNUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.

CL'SIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION CAI EGORY 0

NSI QRD QFRD SECY 81-0220 ASSIGNED TO DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEGALREVIEW 0

FINAL 0

COPY Dircks Case COrnell Denton Rehm 1.

PPAS Shapar 2.

Hana LUnder WOOd3.

Ross Denton ttRR Ez enhut 2-25-81 2 26/81 ASSIGNED TO:

4.

Murle-NO LEGAL 09JECTIOivIS NOTI FY:

0 EDO ADMIN5 CORRES BR EXT.

COI lMENTS, NOT IFY:

EXT.

DATE HTho so MLicitra S.

Sn hler 6.

Vollmer JCAE NOTIFICATION RFCOMMEND D:

0 YES 0

NO c,

C&

NRC FORMi 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS OO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

FROMt-Rep.

Don Bailey ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN TER t tel REPLY DATES CONTROL NO~

DATE OF DOCUMENT TO:

Ahearne FINAL REPLY FILE LOCATION PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:0 CHAIRtitAN g

EXECUTIVE DIRE TOR OTHER:

=C.-.IPTION Q L TTER 0 tAEt/O 0 REPOR 0 OTHER

('.Uestions concerning the licensing process SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS PRIORITY DOCUtstENT/COPY NO, CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.

ASSIGNED TO DATE CATEGORY 0

NSI 0RD 0 FRD INFORMATIONROUTING SECY 81-0220 LEGAL RE V I ElrV 0

FINAL 0

COPY Ez enhut 2 26/81 Denton NRR 2-25-81 Di cks Case Cornell Denton Rehm 1.

PPAS Shapar 2.

Hana LUnderwood3 Ross DATE ASSIGNED TO:

HTho so 4.

hfurle hlLicitra S.

Sn her 6.

Vollitter NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTI FY:

0 EDO ADMIN& CORRES BR EXT.

COVMENTS, NOTIFY:

EXT.

0 YES 0

NO CAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED NRC FORM 232 (11-75)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRlNCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NOT REJHOI/E THIS COPY

~.>

'NQ.

'II8 8

~

8-NRC SECRETARIAT 2/26/81 Logging Date To: 0 Commissioner QXEx~. Oir.iOp r.-,.

I8 0

Cong(Liaison O Public Affairs Date 0 Gen. Counsel~

0 Solicitor O Secretary 0

Inspector Ia Auditor Pollc Evaluation Incoming:

From:

To:

Subject:

, ~18 81 S

CI Prepare reply for signature of:

0 Chairman 0 Commissioner 0

EOO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, IA, PE 0

Signature block omitted 0 Return original of incoming with response Rec'd OKKIIP, +/

Time.

~

T T>>~

X)gQ Eor direct reply'uSpenSe:

Mar 1 6 0

For appropriate action 0

For information Remarks:

OCA to Ack, Docket, RF For the Commission:

bs 1 1 i e

'Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Sranch NRC62 ACTION SLIP

v A