ML19294A564
| ML19294A564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, Sequoyah, San Onofre, Zimmer, 05000584  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1978 |
| From: | Boyd R, Deyoung R, Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812210323 | |
| Download: ML19294A564 (12) | |
Text
'
~.
[
~
UNITED STATES
.t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.i W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 (U(h ' !
j
.f September 28, 1978 MEMJRANDUM FOR:
Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Richard C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Safety FROM:
Richard C. DeYoung, Chairman Licensing Schedules Review Committee
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE SECOND LSRC MEETING The Licensing Schedules Review Comittee (LSRC) held its second meeting on September 22, 1978. The Committee considered the status of plant reviews for those plants announced in the agenda for the meeting, copies of which were distributed on September 15, 1978.
GENERAL DISCUSSION The Chairman announced that a decision had been made to place copies of the LSRC meeting sumaries in the Public Document Room. However, this will not be done until 90 days after the meeting, to allow time for staff members to contact utility applicants and vendors as might be necessary as a result of LSRC decisions and recommendations.
The Chainnan noted that with the exception of the Assistant Director for Site Technology, DSE, all LSRC members either were present or were adequately represented at the meeting. He stated that the LSRC activities were important in the view of NRR management and that he expected all members to give due emphasis to Committee activities and to attend, or be represented at future meetings.
STATUS OF EFFORTS IN RESPONSE TO LSRC ACTIONS Status updates were provided to the Committee in response to Comittee actions and recommendations resulting from its first meeting, in August 1978.
7 812 210 3 M
DISTRIBUTION H. R. Denton V. A. ffoore F. Rosa E. G. Case R. P. Denise Z. R. Rosztoczy M. J. Grossman J. F. Stolz K. Kniel R. S. Boyd R. L Baer T. H. Novak R. J. Mattson
- 0. D. Parr G. L. Chipman, Jr.
D. R. Muller S. A. Varga J. T. Collins V. Stello, Jr.
T. P. Speis W. F. Kreger R. C. DeYoung C. J. Heltemes, Jr.
P. J. Youngblood F. Schroeder P. F. Collins R. L. Ballard J. W. Reece R. W. Houston J. C. Stepp D. B. Vassallo W. P. Haass L. G. Hulman W. P. Gammill R. J. Bosnak D. F. Bunch D. J. Skovholt S. S. Pawlicki S. A. Treby J. P. Knight I. S. Sihweil W. J. Olms tead R. L. Tedesco V. Benaraya E. J. Reis D. F. Ross, Jr.
W. R. Butler J. R. Tourtellotte R. H. Vollmer C. F. Miller H. N. Berkow M. L. Erns t M. Srinivasan A. F. Abell D. M. Crutchfield W. H. Regan, Jr.
LICENSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGERS PROJECT MANAGERS ATTORNEYS I. Peltier J. Jackson S. Schinki H. Silver R. Watkins M. Grainey J. Angelo R. Gilbert S. Burwell J. Conran OS coo 329 c50003a?
O ED CD 3lc I c5cco3GA orooo 35 S' osoco512 oso t> WI o C !To a o 5'1Ll
?[
Multiple Addressees ggg g4 g}j(
l.
SAN ON0FRE 2&3 a.
A meeting with the applicant was held on August 30, 1978, to discuss the possible need for plant design reassessment and the paths of possible resolution perceived by the staff. The applicant plans to meet with the staff again on September 28 and 29 to present its views on the matter.
b.
J. Knight reported that he had contacted Dr. Newmark regarding the possibility of using him as a consultant on the structural adequacy of the plant.
Dr. Newmark has consulted for Bechtel, but not in matters pertaining to the seismic risk for San Onofre. On this basis, we probably could use Dr. Newmark in matters related to seismic criteria, although we could not use his services to help assess the structural adequacy of the plant to meet these criteria.
c.
D. Vassallo reported that we had informed the ACRS that the staff does not want the San Onofre Subcommittee to make an early review of seismic related matters for the plant. However, at this point, we have no assurance that the ACRS will refrain from requesting such a review.
d.
The Licensing Project Manager, H. Rood, reported that he had forwarded to the applicant a copy of the staff's assessment, performed for the Diablo Canyon plant, regarding fuel element grid crushing under combined LOCA and seismic loads.
2.
FLOATING NUCLEAR PLANT a.
A meeting of the NRR Division Directors was held on August 31, 1978, to discuss the status of the FNP manufacturing license review and to decide if the review should be updated. The results of this meeting were documented in a memorandum to LSRC members dated September 12, 1978, in which it was reported that the Division Directors had determined that the review should be updated.
b.
A meeting with the FNP applicant is scheduled for September 29, 1978, to discuss this matter, along the lines outlined in the September 12, 1978, memorandum.
c.
Currently, there is no effort scheduled for the staff to handle this review update.
Multiple Addressees scp : 3,973 PROJECT REVIEWS 1.
ZIMMER 1 Status The current safety review status and problems are discussed in the status report or, Zimmer, Enclosure 1.
The Reactor Systems Branch is holding up its SER input, waiting for additional analyses on Appendix K.
The results of these additional analyses were due to be transmitted to the staff on September 22, 1978, via telephone. The delay in preparation apparently has been caused by disagreement between the applicant and the vendor as to whether the required analyses are generic (vendor responsibility) or plant specific (applicant responsibility).
The ACRS Subcommittee on the Mark II containment has scheduled a meeting for late October 1978. Zimmer Subcommittee does not want to schedule its review until after the Mark II Subcommittee meeting.
As a result, the Zimmer Subcommittee meeting now is scheduled for November 15-16, 1978.
The environmental review is on schedule. No problems are anticipated.
LSRC Action a.
If a problem remains regarding the additional Appendix K analyses, the LPM is to bring the matter to management attention.
b.
RSB input for the SER should be sent to the LPM, less the outstanding issue regarding Appendix K if necessary, to enable the LPM to proceed with final SER preparation.
c.
It is critical to get in touch with the applicant's management to assure cooperation and to avoid polarization between the staff and applicant.
2.
SEQUOYAH 1&2 Status The current safety review status and problems are discussed in the status report on Sequoyah, Enclosure 2.
The Schedule Change Request which was out for concurrence now has been received by the LPM without major changes or exceptions.
Multiple Addressees SEP 0 8 073 A further delay in receipt of the ECCS analysis is possible, due to an anomoly in the test results on the accumulator. The reactor vendor and the applicant are now working on the problem.
The schedule now appears to be slipping due to delays in responses by the applicant. However, the LPM would like to continue to try to meet the new schedule.
The site seismology is a major open issue which must be resolved.
It is critical to the whole review and is applicable to other TVA plants as well.
The Environmental PM reported that the original environmental review was done by TVA, who issued the FES in 1973. The NRC row does environmental reviews for TVA plants. TVA will provide a report on any changes that have occured and identify the impact of these changes.
However, we need to resolve with TVA which agency will per-form the update of the environmental statement for the OL.
LSRC Action a.
No action was taken to expedite the Schedule Change Request since this matter appears to be resolved.
b.
The LPM is to arrange a special internal meeting with the AD for Site Technology to determine the present status of the seismic issue and to get it resolved.
The applicant should be brought in if necessary.
c.
The LPM is to keep a close watch on the schedule.
If it appears that there is a continued delay by the applicant, the priority for the review effort should be decreased.
The applicant should be notified of any change in priority.
3.
PALO VERDE 4&5 Status As noted in the summary of the August LSRC meeting, this project is to be reviewed at each Connittee meeting to assure that is is on schedule.
The safety review schedule now has been approved, calling for a January 9, 1979, SER input. The SER is to be oublished by March 1, 1979, in time for an April ACRS meeting. Hearings could start in late June or early July. Whether the safety and environmental hear-ings will be combined or held separately must be determined.
The
Multiple Addressees SEP 2 8 ;973 being revised and commitments have been obtained from the review branches which indicate that the report to the ACRS could be issued in June 1979, resulting in a PDA issuance in November 1979.
LSRC Action a.
The review should proceed since it now is so far along.
b.
The PM should make sure that the revised schedule is realistic such that additional slips are unlikely.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The Chairman questioned why a number of operating plants (Davis Besse 1, Three Mile Island 2, and North Anna 1) still have not been transferred to DOR.
D. Vassallo indicated that there have been problems resolving some matters necessary to make the transC rs.
However, transfer action now is underway for all three plants.
In connection with the discussion on Zimmer, the LSRC members noted that extended delays on the part of an applicant in responding to staff questions leads to a feeling on the part of the staff that the applicant really is not interes+ad. LPMs should be sure that applicants understand the importance of cooperative, reasonably prompt responses.
An LSRC member noted that more frequent meetings between the LPM and assigned reviewers on any project would tend to establish a feeling on the part of the reviewers that they really are members of a project team.
[
R. C. DeYo
, Chairman Licensing Schedules Review Committee
Enclosures:
1.
Zimmer Status Report 2.
Sequoyah Status Report 3.
ESSAR Status Report 4.
GIBBSAR Status Report cc: See Attached Page
hC l0uft I
2'
-r
, _ r -:. 3r E c_i n - 1 n
- _ra,
.,75 C r r,.
E :* ;s i.
3c been c::dntially cc pleted and a draft SER po: pared in : c aber 1577.
E.:essive.ur.ber of open items precluded issuance of the SER dt t h a t ' ".e ( f 3 c;.e n i t ems ).
n'ith the :'cepticn of those open iteros. ich
2 r k II pool dyramics depcedent, the st3ff has been attempting to r scive e
sc?
9.e. ;. e n ite s since that ti.:.e.
%rrent rd Potential Pecblems All af 'he ncn-pool dynamics issues (with a few exceptions) have been rescl.=d but the LPM has not received input frca Reactor Systems re;arding the 's taes in its area.
Once this input is received the SER will be put in final form for.managenent review (with about 10 open issues).
!"e is rur.ning out on a July 1979 fuel load date in view of the fact that Zi-er has a contested hearing, k_RS S_bccrr.ittee will meet at site on Ncvember 16 and 17,1978 and full C; u. tee will c.eet on Zinn er in Cecember.
2-ndations J.
?dite Reactor Syste~s input and c.3ndge:"ent review to get SER nut by T.id vu_._er l
,/d.
4 e
ENCLOSURE 2 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - OL Docketed January 1974 Current Status Review had been essentially completed and a draft SER prepared in January 1976.
Excessive open items and construction delays precluded issuance of SER at that time.
SER updates were requested within the past year and many were provided. However, some previous schedules for SER update have not been met due to applicant delays in response to questions on open items and internal priority problems.
Meeting with applicant recently resulted in a tentative schedule for responses and indicated earliest fuel load date of 4/30/78.
To reflect this information, a schedule request (SCR) has been prepared (8/29/78) and is in the concurrence chain.
Current and Potential Problems 1.
As of 9/12/78, SCR concurrence has not yet been obtained.
2.
Verbal information indicates further slip beyond commitments at meeting by applicant in responses to RAI. Dates for significant 'tems now range from 8/15/78 through 10/1/78, an additional slip o: up to 1 month on a few items.
3.
Review must be completed of existing and future information by several key branches, and SER updates provided. These branches include:
I&CSB - to expedite completion of the review, we will meet with the applicant as soon as possible to resolve open issues. These were defined to the applicant on 9/8/78 and a meeting is expected about 9/26/78.
Geology / Seismology - Review of applicant information is in progress.
Additional RAI expected by 9/13/78.
MTEB - ISI program.
Information received 7/28. No schedule.
RSB - Many RAI outstanding - TVA response schedule through 10/1/78.
APCSB - Fire protection review in progress.
RAI issued 9/1/78, Hydrology - Responses to RAI received.
Review in progress.
CSB - Responses to RAI schedule 8/15 - 9/15.
RSCB - Security review in progress.
New reviewer.
Schedule unknown.
MEB, AAB, QA, EPB - Minor items.
Recommendations 1.
Expedite concurrence in SCR and issuance of new schedule.
2.
Assign a sufficiently high priority to 5equoyah to assure meeting this schedule.
En c lo sure 3
ESSAR Current Status ESSAR/CESSAR docketed 02-02-78 acceptance review responses 04-17-78 ESSAR/RESAR insert received 03-17-78 acceptance review responses 06-30-78 ESSAR/BSAR
[insertreceived 05-19-78 acceptance review responses 06-30-78 o
Q-1 's from RAB, RA and EPB (about 1%of total) sent to applicant 07-06-78.
Current and Potential Problems and Sources of Delays The primary problem is the delayed and fragmented review schedule. The review of this application is Priority 3J. in D. B. Vassallo's memo of 9-13-78 on scheduling adjustments.
The schedule is controlled by the inability to schedule the review in the I&CS Branches, Power Systems, Materials, Structural, Reactor Systems and Accident Analysis Branches.
Recommended Actions If sufficient priorities cannot be given to the above noted branches to perform an earlier review, the following action should be considered:
1.
Due to the preponderance of significant branches being unable to schedule the start of the review within the next six months, consideration should be given for placing this review in " Suspense" until all branches can complete their reviews within the same calendar quarter.
2.
A letter should be prepared for H. Denton's signature to transmit our findings to EBASCO. EBASCO should also be given a commitment as to when the staff would pickup the review again.
. Snell, Project Manager Standardization Branch, DFM
GIBBSSAR REVIEW Q-1 Phase Essentially complete except:
Pwr. Sys. Br.
Q-l's not yet generated - manpower controlling Instru. & Control Containment Sys.
- r. Q-1 response not yet complete (Est. compl. - 11/78)
Analysis Br.
Steam flow data from W controlling Q-2 Phase Progressing at-or-near schedule except for Q-1 problem areas noted.
(a)
Q-2's received by LPM from:
Six review branches (as of 9/15/78)
(b)
Q-2's scheduled to LPM from remaining branches: 9/15/78 - 10/1/78 Current Problem Areas 1.
IC & PS manpower not available to support REV. I schedule 2.
Steam line break analysis delayed by b[ steam flow data to G&H.
Recommended Action Approve proposed schedule revision (consistent with assigned priority and manpower availability in PS and IC Branches). See attached schedule summary sheet.
NOTE:
GIBBSSAR review schedule and recent priori ty assi nment by NRR were S
discussed at a meeting on 9/12/78 between Gibbs & Hill representatives and DPM/ DSS management. As a result of that meeting, the Director, DSS, provided revised dates for completion of controlling GIBBSSAR review items reflected in the attached " Proposed Rev. 2 Schedule.
4 GIBBSSAR BOP ICE kEVIEW hiASE PDA REVIEW PHASE Ini tial Schedule
'Rev. 1 Schedule Proposed Rev. 2 Sched.
E ven t--
Da te Event (Estab. 8/9/ 77)
(Appr'd 6/297T8).
I hominal - 9/22/77 Appliu.t u,.
10/16/76 Q-l's to Applicant M P r.Sys. - 11/ 7/77 Draft 4 V 8 mo. delay + 7/15/78
+~6 no delayM l/20/79 S utrii t te d B ra r.ch 12/6//7 fi nal i ns tru.
l j
Q Control-2/16/78 omi nal - 11/10/77 Application S/10/76 j
j Docke ted Q-1 Resp. Conplete Pwr.Sys.
l l Branch - 1/18/78 (Final),
I ns tru.
& Control-3/ 30/ 78 L
I l
I l
.bminal - 1/30/78 1
Q-2's to Applicant Pwr.Sys. - 3/30/78 (final) 4/7/79 l Branch j
' I ris t ru.
t Con trol - 6/ 9/ 78 l
1 S ta f f Repor t
- 11/1/78 i
6/7/79 f
- 12/ 8/ 78 Sept. 79 SER 2/8/ 79 r
Oc t. - No v. 79
~
PDA
?/8/ 79 4 no, delay-6/29/ 79 v5 mo. delay %
Nov. 79 47Mo.AcceptanceReview@
Initial 21 Mo. PDA Review Q.
__ :l y
~26 Mo. PDA Review
~30 Hs. PDA Review ri
~38 Mo. TOTAL GIBBSSAR Review Schedule N
Y