ML17275B371
| ML17275B371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275B372 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106110439 | |
| Download: ML17275B371 (28) | |
Text
\\~~ RECT c~
P 4
0 I
+
~O ky~y4 CHAIRMAN UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtvtlSS!ON WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 May 29, 1981 The Honorable. Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Devel opment Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Mashington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.
Our seventh monthly status report is enclosed and covers the period from April 15, 1981 to May 15, 1981.
This seventh report discusses the actions that were taken during the last month on operating reactors and licens-ing reviews of new facilities.
During this period three applicants reported revisions to their estimated construction completion dates.
The estimated construction completion date for LaSalle 1
has been revised from June 1981 to September 1981.
The estimated construction completion date for Susquehanna 1
has be n revised from June 1981 to April 1982.
The estimated cons truction canpletion da e for Seabrook 1
has been revised from January T983 to November 1983.
Only Susquehanna 1 is a potentially delayed facility.
Secause of the applicant's revision of he estimated construction completion date, the delay estimated for this facility has been reduced fran twelve to two months.
This change has been incorporated into the DOE cost estimates.
In addition, the Washington Public Power Supply System reported that they are re-evaluating
.he es imated construction completion date for Mashington Nuclear Project No. 2.
The preliminary results of their evaluation, taking into account the impact of last year's extended labor dispute, indicates a scheduled fuel load date or MNP-2 of September 1983.
This date-was reported by the local news media on May 4, 1981.
The applicant is presently re-evaluating the critical path milestones for the acility with an objective of achieving a
,uel load date no later than December 1982.
A meeting to discuss the review schedule for MNP-2 wi.h the applicant is planned for late June 1981.
After the me ting the review schedule will be modi ied as necessary.
I would also like to note three recent actions that will be reported in more detail in the next monthly report.
These are the Ccmmission actions in appr~
ing a final rule change to Appendix 8 of Part 2 that will save* two months for each operating license case in which a hearing is held,'n publishing the Policy Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, and in approving issuance of a full power operating license for Salem Unit 2.
Sincer ely, Jose M. Hendrie
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers
C 1
r,
)
- t II 1
-1 NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT '0 CONGRESS This is the seventh monthly status report :o Congress in response to the directions gi ven in House Report 96-1093.
This repor
"., provides a discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing r
views of new facilities during the period of time between Apr.'1 15, 1981 and May 15, 1981.
OPERATING REACTORS Thermal Shock to Reac.or Pressure Yessels For the oast several years the NRC and industry have been conduc:ing research on the effec. s of thermal shock to r c"or pressure vessels.
Theral shock could. result from a sequence of events causing'a rapid cool Sewn of the reactor pressure vessel.
Af:er a ;hermal shock event, tne s-'ructural integrity of'he reactor pressure vessel could be jeopardized by the repressurization of the reactor prassur vessel.
- Recently, research program results have been published which provice a
setter understanding of the potential severi:y of overcooling transients, and the expected behavior of reac or press re vessel materials.
Tnesa re-search orograms include development of na:arials
~wta and Improved analytical
- ,etnocs for assessing reactor pressure vessel integr ty.
- -n acd.zion, the s=
-,. evaluated overcooling events at ores-ur zeo wa ar reac=or "iants ano r eviewed acc dent analyses to estimate the prooabii'.ty of a severe Qvercool Ing
=."ansi nt.
As a result of its evaluations to date, he staff has concluded tha-the pr ooability of a severe overcooling transient is relatively low ana that, oasaa "n present irradiation levels at ooer'ting reactors, reactor pressure
L l
1 1
1 I
2 vessel failure from such an event is unlikely-Accordingly, the staff believes that no immediate licensing actions are required on operating reactors.
- However, the staff is continuing its investigation in this area.
This continuing assess-ment, taken together with information being provided by industry Owners Groups, wiTl permit the staff to define what long term actions the industry and the NRC must take to resolve this safety concern.
Pipe Breaks in the BWR Scram System The NRC's Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data issued a report on April 3, 1981 entitled "Safety Concerns Associated with Pipe'Breaks in the BWR Scram System".
The report describes a potential sequence of events resulting in a degraded core, condition.
The sequence is based on a postulated break in the BMR scram discharge piping.
A number of recomnendations were made in the report to remedy the potential safety concerns-A'letter was sent to all BMR licensees on April 10, 1981 requiring a generic evaluation of the safety concerns within 45 days and a plant specific evaluation I
within 120 days.
In addition, the staff held a meeting on April 28 to discuss these safety concerns with representatives of the BMR licensees and representatives of the General Electric Company the reactor vendor for the affected BWRs.
In response to the staff's April 10 request for a generic evaluation of the safety
- concerns, the General Electric Company provided on April 30 a generic analysis of the safety concerns associated with pipe breaks in the BWR scram system.
The staff is performing an accelerated review of the generic analysis.
The staff's safety evaluation report on the generic analysis is scheduled to be conpleted by about May 29, 1981.
OP:RATIH.". LIC".HSZ APPL ICATIOHS Licensino Schedules During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activ'es con.inued to be on OL appl:cations.
The present licensing schedules for plants projected by utilities.o be comple.ed in 1981 and 1982're given in Table 1, and the licensing schedules for plants projected to be completed in'983 are given in Table 2.
The potential del'ays between construction completion and projected issuance of a full power license are presented based on the applicant's expected construction completion date.
The applicants'stimated completion dates have historically proven optimistic, that is, earlier than ac ual construction comoletion dates, and therefore their use may overstate the delay.
On the other hand, it is difficult to predic. NRC's license issuance dates especically more than a year in advance.
Thus the dates shown in Table 2 should not be considered definit've for either the licensee or the NRC.
Commissioners Ahearne and Bradford no e the following table; PROJECTED FUEL LOAD OAT S Plant LaSalle HRC Fstimate (2/81) 9/81 Licensee ":stimate (Apr. Status Rot.)
6/Sl (Jan.
9, 1981)>>
Licensee Lstimate (Nay Status Rp.. )
9/Sl (Nay 6, 1981)"
Susquehanna MHP-2 Seabrook 3/82 7/83" 7/84 7/82 (Feb.
1980)>>
1/83 (Jara.
6, 1980) 12/82-9/83 (Nay 13, 1981)"
ll/83 (Aor. 15, 1981 )"
6/81 (Oc.. 30, 1980) 4/SZ (Nay 4, 1981)"
The HRC has made changes to i.s regula ions reducing tne amoun o,
time allocated for the Immediate Kffec iveness Rule.
All the schedules shown in Tables 1
and 2 are based on this
. ime-saving measure.
<<Da e the licensee provided estimate
Table 1 schedules were developed on a case-by-case basis by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of the Executive Legal Oirector and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
Table Z schedules are based on the assumption of a standard. eleven-month hearing process that takes into account the effect of both the change in the Tmnediate Effectiveness Rule and other rule changes reTated-to the hearing and Coamission review process under consideration by the Coamission.
Table 2 schedules were developed to complete the entire licensing process prior to the applicant's estimated construction completion date.
Recently three applicants reported revisions to their estimated construction coapletion dates.
The estimated construction completion date for LaSalle 1
has be n revised.'from June 1981 to September 1981.
The estimated construction completion date for Susquehanna 1
has been revised from June 1981 to April 1982.
The estimated construction completion date for Seabrook 1
has been revised rom January 1983 to November 1983.
Only Susquehanna 1 is a potentially delayed facility.
Because of the applicant
's revision of the estimated construction completion date, the delay estimated for this faci lity has been reduced from twelve to two months.
In addition, the Washington Public Power Supply System reported that they are re-evaluating the estimated construction completion date for Washington Nuclear Project No, 2.
The preliminary results of their evaluation, taking I
into account the impact of last year 's extended labor dispute, indicates a
scheduled fuel load date for WNP-2 of September
.1983-This date was reported by the local news media on May 4, 1981
~
The applicant is presently re-evaluating the critical path milestones for the facility with an objective of achieving a
fuel load date no later than Oecember 1982.
A meeting to discuss the review
l schedule for MNP-2 with the applicant is planned for late June 1981
~
After.
the meeting the review schedule will be modified as necessary.
Proposed Rule for Tt<I-2 Related Safet Reouirements The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations. to incorporate additional THI-2 safety-related requirements which est be met by OL applicants.
The requirements, which were previously approved by the Comnission and referenced in its December 1980 Policy Statement, resulted from intensive reviews of the lessons learned from the Three Nile Island accident and are in addition to those safety requirements already incorporated in the regulations..
The proposed rule was issued for a 90-day public cogent period on Hay 13, 1981 and is expected to reduce litigation related to these requirements in the licensing process.
These requirements for OL applicants were initially approved by the Commission in Nay 1980.
Revisions to these requirements were approved in October 1980.
These requirements are contained in "Clarification of THI
-Action Plan Requirements" (NUREG-0737).
Corrrnission guidance to the NRC staff and licensing boards on use of these requirements in the review of OL appli-cations and the subsequent public hearings was. provided in a December 1980 Policy Statement.
In asking for public co~~nt, the Comnission expressed its particular interest in comments related to whether any of the requirements may be redundant with existing regulations; if some may not be needed at all; or if some are so
'specific and of such limited applicability that hey should not be included in the regulations.
In addition, the Comnission is interested in public comments on the potential impact if the proposed amendment becomes an
1 L;
I' effective rule on OL applications whic.- presently are heine considered by licensing boards particularly those wn re the record already might oe closed.
'i Cost Estimates The NRC is obtaining cos" estimates associated with the licensing delays from the Oepartment of Energy on a monthly basis, These estimates are set forth in.
Footnote 3 to Table T of the 00'c.. report states that NRC projects.
a return to service for THi Unit 1 in October 1981.
This is i naccurate.
An NRC licensing board decision, not a return to service, is expected in October 1981.
The Commission has expressed no view wi h respect to the restart of Unit 1, but has indicated that it would attempt to make a decision on the effectiveness of a board decision authorizing restart within 35 days o,
the board's decision.
Comission Actions to Improve the Licensina Process C
i i
i i
'1
~Fd lit i'1,198ip d
ments to its Rules of Practice that would permit more timely completion of hear ings.
The public comment period for the proposed amendments expired on April 7, 1981.
To date, responses from over six hundred commentors have been received.
The counts have been analysed by the staff and a final r ule nas been prepared fpr Commi ss ion consideration.
The Commission has changed its Rules of P. actice to permi t more immediate operation o
nuclear power plants which have received favorable Atomic Safety and I.i censing Board initial decisions on fuel loading and low power -;esting or full oower operating licenses.
Tre amendments provice hat Commission decisions on wnether favorable ini ial decisions should become ef,ective will be made within 10 days for uel loading and low power testing licenses and 30 days for full power licenses.
Tne prior rules provided or such Commission decisions wi ".nin 80 days.
I l
[
I
Also, the Comaission has issued a Policy Sta-'ement on he E ficient Conduct of Licensing Proce dings.
The Policy Statement was issued to emphasize the Comnission's corrnitment to a hearing process which will produce sound licensing decisions in a fair and timely manner.
PLANT 8Y PLANT 0 ISCUSSIOiRS OF DELAY'ED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of each of the delayed facilities.
1.
San Onofr e Unit 2 - The FES was issued on Nay 6, 1981.
The SSER was issued on Nay 8, 1981.
The hearing is scheduled to,start in June 1981.
A decision on the full power license is projected for February 1982.
8ased on the current schedule an eight-month delay is projected for this facility.
Z.
Diablo Can on 1
and 2 - An updated'SER for low power ooeration was issued Narch 5, 1981
~
The hearing for low power operation began on Nay 19.
A licensing decision on low power operation is scheduled for December-1981-The SER for full power operation was issued April 2, 1981.
The full pcwer hearing is scheduled to begin in September.
A decision on a full power license is projected for January
- 1982, A twelve-month delay is projec ed for Unit 1
and a thr ee-month delay is p rojected for Unit Z.
3.
Shoreham Unit 1 - The SER for Shoreham 1 was issued on April 10, 1981 with a number of open items requiring ur her inforpztion from the appl c nt.
Sixty-one such items were iden-ified.
Because of the large number and signi icance of the open items, the ACRS deferred its review of this case pending a more complete resolution of the open items.
The apolicant has committed to provide by the end of May 1981 a large portion of "heir responses to the open items, including the TNi requirements.
The estimated construction completion date is May 1982.
A decision regarding.
a full pmer license is projected for August 1982.
A three-month delay is projec ed for his facility.
4.
Summer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28, 1981.
The hearing is scheduled to start in June 1981.
A decision for a. full power license is.
projected. for January 1982.
A five-month delay fs projected for this facility.
5.
Susquehanna Unit 1 - The SER for Susquehanna 1 was issued on April 10, 1981 with 103 open items.
Because of the large number and significance of the open items, the ACRS deferred its review of this case pending a more complete resolution of the open items.
The applicant has coomitted to provide by June 1981 most of the required information.
The applicant reported a revision to their estimated construction completion date f'rom June 1981 to April 1982.
A decision on the full pcNIer license is projected for June 1982.
Because of the applicant's revision of the estimated construction conyletion date, the delay projected for this facility has been reduced from twelve to two mon hs.
6.
Zimmer Unit 1 - The Zinger SSER is scheduled for issuance on Nay 29, 1981.
The Zirmer hearing is scheduled to recormence in October 1981 '
decision on the full power license is projec ed or May 1982.
A six-mon"h delay is projected or this facility.
7.
Wa erford Uni-3 - The OE'S was issued on Hay 1,
1981
~
The SER =or Water,ord Unit 3 is scheduled to be issued on May 30, 1981.
The estimated construction completion dated is October 1982.
A decision regarding a
full power license is projected for Noveoner 1982.
A delay. of one month is projec.ed for this facility,
8.
Comanche Peak Unit 1 - The DES was issued on May 15, 1981.
The SER for Comanche Peak is scheduled to be issued on June ll, 1981.
The estimated construction completion date is December 1981.
A decision regarding the 4
full power license is projected for October 1982.
A ten-month delay is projected for this facility.
9.
McGuire Unit 1 - The SER for low power operation at McGuire Unit 1 was issued
-January 8, 1981.
A fuel loading and zero power testing license was issued January 23, 1981.
The hearing for a full power license started on February 24, and was completed on March 19, 1981.
The ASLB issued a'n initial decision'n May 26, 1981.
A Corrmission decision on a full power license is projected for June 1981-
'A five-monih delay is projected for this facility.
FULL POWER LICENSES Full Power License for Salem Unit 2 The SSER on all matters except d'or emergency preparedness was issued in January 1981.
A joint exercise (including NRC, FEMA, the utility, local and State agencies) was conducted on April 8, 1981 '
favorable report from FEMA on the adequacy of off-site emergency preparedness was received on April 24, 1981.
Since the issuance of the January 1981 SSER the staff has identified addit'ional items related to fire protec.ion thai required review prior to the licensing of Salem 2, in particular ailures of -he licensee to provide promised information and to complete items on the licensee's schedule.
Staff review of the fire protection matter was completed in mid-May.
The SSER on emergency preparedness and fire protection was issued on May T5, 1981.
A full power license for Salem Unit 2 was issued on May 20, 1981.
Full Power License for Seauo ah Uni 2
The SSER for a full power license for Sequoyah Unit 2 is scheduled to be issued on May 26, 1981.
A Coamission decision on the issuance of a full power license is anticipated in early June.
CONSTRUCTiON PERMIT APPLICATIONS The Comnission is completing its efforts to develop a
new rule concerning the manner and extent to which new requirements resulting from the Three Mile Island 2 accident (TMI Action Plan) should be applied to pending CP and OL applications.
The Coenission published a proposed rule on TMI-related
'onstruction permit.requiresmnts in the Federal Reoister for public comnent on March 23, 1981.
The public conrient period.or the proposed rule expired April 13.
The sta f has reviewed the public comnents that were received from over 34 comaentors, and has prepared a final rule for Comission considera ion.
Following a Corroission decision on this rule, detailed schedules will be
.provided for the pending CP applications.
I II I,
I j
i@bi es:
1.
Licensing Schedules "Y 1981 - 1982 Plan:s 2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Plants Attachments:
OOE =stimates of Costs Oue to Licensing Oelays
F i
t
TAILE I CY 1981 - 1982 PLANTS Olvlsion of Llcensln>I 5/20/81 Plant Esth>>ated Delay
{Honths)
Issue OES SER Staff (echulcal Issue lnuut to I)L SER ACRS
)It>1 Issue FES SSER Staff
)echnlca)
Issue ln ut to OL SSER Start ASLG of In)tea)
Hearl~n Decl'sion Co>u>>l ss lon Decision Date APP))cant Constructio>)
LaSal le
'I LaSalle 2
San Onofre 2 San Onofre 3
Diablo Canyon I Diablo Canyon 2
N<<Gulr<<1 14>C>ul>'<<2 Shorcha>a I
Suu>w.r I Su%>)<<chan>>a I
Sequuyah 2
21ss>><<r I
Materford 3 Co>>>anch<<
Peak I
Fer>>d 2
Grand Gulf )
Calla>>ay I
St. Lucle 2 Natts Dar I Palo Verd<<)
NHP-2 0
0 0
0 12 3
5 0
3 5
2 0
6 I
IO 0
0 0
0 0
0 C
C C
C C
C C
r.
C r.
C C
C C
C C
5/3) /))I 9/25/Gl 9/25/Gl C
IU/23/UI 7/31/Dl C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
5/UG/81 5/22/GI 6/10/81 8/14/81 9/I I/81 9/ I I/GI 9/11/Gl 10/09/81 2/12/02 C
C C
C C
C C
C C 1/
C C I/
C C
5/30/81 6/I I/Gl 6/30/Gl 9/07/81 10/09/GI 10/09/GI 10/09/Gl II/OG/81 3/12/82 C
C C
C C
C C
8/06/8)
C 8/U6/Gl C
C 7/09/Dl 7/09/Gl 8/UG/Gl 10/13/01 II/I2/GI 11/I2/DI 11/12/GI 12/ IO/8) 4/09/82 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
5/15/Ul 6/15/GI C
C 8/UG/Gl 8/12/GI 8/31/81 9/15/Dl I/I5/02 I/)5/82 C
2/I2/82 12/3)/Gl 5/15/Ol 4/01 /82 C
6/Ol /82 C
C
~ C 4/Ul/02 8/20/Dl C
0/20/81 5/15/81 5/01/81 7/IG/8 I 7/17/81 8/14/Gl 10/25/Dl II/20/81 11/20/DI 11/26/Dl 12/18/82 4/30/82 5/29/Gl 5/01/82 C
7/01/82 C
C C
5/Ul/82 8/28/81 C
8/20/Dl 5/24/Gl 5/29/81 7/31/Gl 8/)2/81 8/31/01 11/15/GI
'll/27/0) 11/27/GI
~12/11/Gl
)2/31/81 5/28/82 None None 07/8) 07/81 09/Gl 09/Sl C
C 01/82 04/Dl 10/Gl Hone 10/8'I 03/82 Ol/82 02/02 Hone 04/82 04/82 Hone 05/82 Hone Hono Hone 01/82 01/82 12/81 12/SI C
Ur/Dl 07/82 12/81 t)5/82 Hone 04/82 10/82 09/82 DD/02 None 09/82 09/82 Hone 10/82 Hone 06/81 06/82 02/82 08/82 01/02 01/82 06/Dl OG/02 08/82 01/02 DG/82 06/Dl 05/82 11/02 10/02 09/82 12/Gl IO/82 10/82 01/82 Il/82 07/82 09/Gl 06/82 66/8) 08/82 01/81 10/GI 01/Gl DG/02 05/82 OU/81 04/82 05/Ol
'I l/81 10/82 12/Gl 11/82 12/OI 10/82 IO/82 06/82 I I/82 12/02 I/
SER has been Issued; Pre-ACRS SSER Is sch<<du)ed to be Issued Jun<<26, 1981
It l,
I I
J
Sana>
2 CV )903 rt(0))S OIVISIA(l OF LICE)IS))(G -. 5/15/Al Plant Est)<<<atcd Ocl ay I)(out)(s)
Issue Issue AC((S OE5 SEA HIG ISSUE
. )ssue I ES SSEA Start of l(ear~in ASL0
~
lnltlal Dec)sion kAC
'ec)sion Oate Applicant Construct)on Co<anl e tIon Seabrook I/2 Cllnton I
)(olf Crcck I
Ayron I/2 I'crry I/2
)I) <) la(<<I I/2 Cata<<ha I/2 So.
1exas I/2
((lycr Acn<l I/2 0
II/AI 01/02 02/02 II/01 Ol/02 02/02 01/82 04/02 05/02 Ol/02 04/02 05/02 02/02 05/02 06/02 04/02 Ol/02 OA/82 05/02 OA/02 09/02 06/02 09/82 10/02 07/02 lo/02 ll/02 03/02 02/82 03/02 02/02 06/82 05/02 06/02 05/02 Ol/02 06/02 09/82 OA/02 10/07 09/02 ll/02 10/02 07/02 01/02 10/02 IO/02 11/82 01/83 02/A3 03/83 12/02 11/02 04/03 12/02 12/02 03/83 03/03 04/03.
06/03 Ol/03 OA/03 09/03 01/03 Ol /03 04/03 04/03 05/03 01/83 08/03 09/03 lo/03 II/03 01/03 04/03 04/03 05/03 Ol/03 00/03 09/03 10/03
,t l
l