ML19249E486
| ML19249E486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf, Columbia, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1978 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910010581 | |
| Download: ML19249E486 (6) | |
Text
-
,K MEETl!4G
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION
~3 tral files 'fD -- 9/ 6/9/ /
J. Knight I
I D. Ross l
NRC PDR R. Tedesco LOCAL PDRs of Utilities fiRR Readin9 Involved R. Bosnak S. Pawlicki H. Denton
- 1. Sibweil E. Case i
K. Kniel l
R. Boyd T. Novak R. DeYoung Z. Rosztoczy D. Vassallo W. Butler D. Skovbolt V. Benaroya W. Gaqinill Chief, ICSB-J. Stoiz V. Moore R. Baer R. Vollmer O. Parr M. Ernst S. Varga F. Rosa W. Haass LP Branch Chief R. Houston D. Bunch L. Crocker D. Crutchfield J. Collins e
F. Williams W. Kreger G. Lear R. Mattson B. Youngblood D. Muller J. Stepp M. Grossman L. Hulman IE (7)
C. Mci t e..;es ACRS (It;)
L. Rubenstein TIC Utility Attendees (see list)
R. Denise C. Thomas S. Kari H. Berkow I
I(
/i (P Y i
791 0010 $7/
g 1032
, J
[ga mw%
.h r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON y 1,k/. ", ;
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y
f s
Y%7J$.
5 AUG 1 G 1978 y-*..../
MEHORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
John F. Stolz, Chief, Light Water Reactors Crar 11 No.1, Division of Project Management, NRR SUBJECT :
SU MARY OF MEETING WITH APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCHEDULE MAITERS At the request of hr. Harold Denton, Director, NRR, a meeting was held in I
Bethesda, Maryland on August 9,1973 with the group of applicants identi-fied in Enclosure 1.
The purpose of the ueeting was to discuss review schedule uatters and staf f resources.
This was the second of three such neetings.
The first ueeting, with a group of applicants consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving the highest priority, was held on August 1,1978, and is sunnarized in D. B. Vassallo's meuorandum to you dated August 4,1918.
This second
.a ting was with another grnup of applicants, cnnsisting largely of those with vperatiiig license applications which are currently receiving somewhat less priority than those of the first group.
The third meeting, with yet dnother group of applicants Consisting Idrgely of those with construction per.iit applications, was scheduled for August 10, 1978.
Mr. Denton opened the neeting with some general remarks by stating that these meetings constitute somewhat of an experiment in apprising applicants of review schedule problems and eliciting their collective views on estab-lishing the accuracy of plant construction conpletion and fuel loading dates for operating license applications.
Mr. Denton explained that the staff's primary interest in these dates is to establish priority of review to meet the staf f's commitment of completing the operating license review by the fuel loading date (i.e., the date constrcction of the facility has been completed in accordance with the application).
Mr. Denton explained that in order to provide the staff with realistic construction coupletion dates, we have utilized the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel.
The Forecast Panel, assisted by NRR Project Managers and Inspection and Enforceaent Inspectors, has made numerous visits to plant sites to discuss schedular matters with utilities and attenpt to independently drrive at a Construction conpletion date.
Mr. Denton said tha" because in many cases there was a disparity between the Forecast Panel's projection and tiiat of the utility, he has found sone utility concern with the staff's i
i 1032
]
P00R0GNg Harold R. Uenton AUG 1 C 1978 dttempt to establish construction completion dates. Many of the utility representatives present indicated some apprehension in having the staff develop these dates and publish then because there are many other consid-erations involved in a utility establishing and trying to adhere to a scheduled fuel load date.
Several of the utility representatives present requested that we consider establishing a more viable neans for appealing the construction completion dates developed by the Forecast Panes.
Mr. Boyd noted that the important consideration was really the establishing of review schedules for the pending OL reviews. He suggested that for those cases in whicn the utility's construction conpletion date differed from the staff's review completion date by more than 4 months, an appeal ueeting be held to resolve the difference.
Mr. Denton stated that we need information such as that developed by the 1
Forecast Panel to establish a priority review list since we have to allocate the available staff resources to higher priority reviews.
Mr. Denton pointed out that although we anticipate some increase in the size of the staf f in Fiscal Year 1980, no significant change is expected in Fiscal Year 1979.
Mr. Denton went on to explain that operating plants have the highest priority, but after that the next highest priority is for operating license reviews g,
with the objective of preventing d21ay of staff review beyond t he schMuled fuel loading date.
Lupies of the staf f's curr ent priority listing f or case work (Enclosure 2) were distributed to the participants.
Mr. Denton stated that he recognized that this was an early atteupt at listing the priorities, but had called this meeting to share with the utilities the difficulties of scheduling reviews and to ask their input or help in establishing a priority listing acceptable to applicants and the staff.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present explained how the staf f is attempting to use the priority listing. Dr. Mattson explained that for the Division of Systems Safety, he has forecast the resources of each reviewer six nonths in advance, consistent with the Division of Project Management's He explained how this is broken down to establish how each priority.
reviewer spends his or her time on a weekly basis over a six-month period.
After this, Mr. denton turned to the matter of resolving safety issues unich appear to consistently recur on current operating license reviews and seem to be the pace-setting items in completing the review in time for fuel loading.
Mr. Denton explained that there are a number of these common probleus which seem to be delaying operating license reviews and suggested that the applicants singly or collectively put more ef fort into resolving Some of the issues which were used as examples are environ-these matters.
mental qualification of safety equipment, asymmetric loads and computer Ine stoff explained that around 1975, OSS needed about protection systens.
500 nan days to review an operating license application.
Since the issuance i
I 1032 iii
~
P00R~0M91R Harold R. Der. ton AUG 1 e 1978 of the Standard Review Plan, and with the increased involvement of the public, and the experience from a growing number of operating plants, DSS review now requires about 1700 man days.
Dr. Mattson explained, however, that for Arkansas Unit 2, his stoff review required 2400 man days, the main reason being the complexity of the core protection calculator system review.
Mr. Denton explained that the staf f could just not afford to continue to put this heavy involvement in one review area.
Mr. Denton suggested that applicants can help in reducing this effort by improving the timeliness of their input to the staff and assuring that it is complete and responsive.
He also suggested, as an exauple, that applicants could help in reducing the staff's equipment qualification audit effort by performing their own independent audit prior to submittal for staf f review to further assure that the equipment has been properl, qualified.
i Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present pointed out that reviewing I
generic problems common to a number of applications, such as is being done for the Mark 11 containment, helps reduce our review effort considerably.
They urged the utility representatives to consider other areas to which this approach might be applied and as further reliance on our recent reviews of similar plants or reviewing all or significant portions of similar plants concurrently.
Mr. Denton pointed out that the first group of applicants, which also con-sisted largely of those with operating license applications, had generally dgreed that scheduled fuel load dates should be retained as the primary basis for establishing priorities.
Mr. Denton then suggested that the in-dustry participants discuss amongst themselves how they might assist in establishing review priorities or other means for improving the licensing process.
Several utility representatives indicated that they had reviewed the recomaendations made by the first group of applicants, which were dis-tributed to the participants as part of the sumuary of the first meeting, and recomaended their adoption.
There appeared to be general agreement among the utility representatives present that the group adopt these recomaendations as well.
The recommendations are as follows:
1.
NRR has the responsibility to industry to review applications to meet utilities' fuel load dates and the responsibility to apply NRR resources to accomplish this.
2.
Applicants have the obligation to maintain the most realistic schedule infonnation to the NRR.
3.
NRR should give applicants the schedules for its review, report progress against those schedules and propose corrective actions.
l 1032 2
P00R ORGIRL liarold R. Denton /.UG ! G 1978 4.
Utilities request the fiRR to furnish a list of specific areas where the utilities could aid the i;RR in inproving and shortening the licensing process.
S.
Applicants will schedule individual meetings with the Directors of UPM and USS (Roger Boyd and Roger Mattson) to review the status of their plant licensing review, problem areas and solutions to the problems.
Mr. Denton stated that he appreciated these views.
Further, he stated that the participants might wish to reflect on this further and later subuit written cor uents.
Mr. Denton indicated that we would await the views of all three groups of applicants before attempting to establish any different method for setting review priorities. He further indicated I
that we expect to issue a revised priority list in September and to I
update the list at, possibly three-month intervals.
Mr. Denton indicated that we are considering making the Blue Book available to the public, although some modifications might have to be nade to it to make it more understandable.
The group of utility representatives present generally agreed that this would be very helpful.
Several of the utility runrewntatives prewnt r equested that iri cddition to the Blue Book schodules, we also make available our current review priority list indicating f or each plant on the list some measure of the staff effort being expended on the review.
Mr. Uenton also encouraged utility management meetings with the staff management, particularly during the latter course of a review, to resolve major outstanding review issues.
Through past experience, the staff has found this to be a very effective mechanism.
Both the staff and utility representatives seemed to think that this was a productive discussion.
?
O j'.
?
(%/ kit f.d of n F. Stolz, Chief Ljjht Water Reactor Branch tio.1 Division of Project Management Enclosures; 1.
Attendance List 2.
Staff's Current Priority listing for Case Work cc w/ enclosures:
Attendes l
i l
1032 :B
EflCLOSURE. 1 UTILITY MEETING WITH 11. DENTON ON SCHEDULING AUGUST 9, 1978 bb!E795g.
jg fi QYgge.;2;1jf, H. Denton R. Boyd R. Mattson R. DeYoung J. Stolz C. Thomas UTILITIES
- 11. T. Babb South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Ruble A. Thomas Southern Company Services I
Alan R. Barton Alabama Power Co.
E. H. Crews, Jr.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
H. C. Schmidt Texas Utilities L. F. Fikar Texas Utilities Nicholas S. Reynolds DeBevoise & Liberman R. G. Cockrell WPPSS J. C. Saldarin Fhasco Services Thomas J. P.uney Ebasco Services Robert Prieto Gibbs & Hill Sol Burstein Wisconsin Electric Del Leppke Fluor Pioneer Tom Roell Fluor Pioneer Wm. A. Williams, Jr.
South Carolina Public Service Authority J. P. McGaughy Mississippi Power & Light Company Larry F. Dale Mississippi Power & Light Company Ed. A. Turner Houston Lighting & Power G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Houston Lighting & Power John Mann Arizona Public Service Co.
Paul P. DeRienzo Gibbs & liill 1032 J.-
i i
1.NC_L_O_wR.L /
LWR PRIORITY LISTING - CASEWORK l
l Priorit,g Case Nest tyfn(
l Davis Besse 1 Operating plants still under Cook 2 cognizance of LWR.
North Anna 1 l
TMI-2 Hatch-2 2
ANO-2 OL 3
Diablo Canyon 1&2 SER Supplenent 4
McGuire Hearing S
Shoreham SER SER 6
Z inner SER 7
Sequoyah I
8 Salem 2 SER j
9 San Onofre 2&3 SER 10 Midland Q2 11 Allens Creek SER 12 New England 1&2 ACRS 13 RESAR-414 ACRS 14 Davis Besse 2&3 ACRS IS Erie 1&2 ACRS 16 taSalle Q2 17 Watts Bar Q2 18 Sucmer Q2 Fermi-2 Q1 19 20 SWESSAR/BSAR-20S SER 21 BOPSSAR Rev.
Q1 22 Farley 2 N/S 23 Palo Verde 4&S N/S 24 GlBBSAR Q1 25 Haven N/S 26 WPPSS 2 N/S 27 Susquehanna l&2 N/S 28 Grand Gulf l&2 N/S 29 South Texas 1&2 N/S 30 Comanche Peak N/S 31 Bellefonte N/S 32 ESSAR N/S 33 GAISSAR N/S liold 34 AGS in addition, the following plants are in hearing with limited issues.
Required work on these cases will necessarily be of high priority but should be very limited in scope.
Pebble Springs 1&2 Skagit Black Fox 1&2 Yellow Creek
[
Greene County FNP 1032 J