ML19317F503
| ML19317F503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1973 |
| From: | Cabell A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140733 | |
| Download: ML19317F503 (6) | |
Text
h.
(
l} J 2 J':)
L e
l 10/02/73 Note to the Files Re: OL Fee for Oconce 2 - Duke Power Co.
In determining whether or not to charge a fuellity a red wed if_ce m fee (based on a concurrent licensing revicu), the Lusivas man.prunt-Branch has been using the following criteria:
1.
Plants are of similar design 2.
ACRS review is completed simultaneously fer th cpplicable onito 3.
Safety evaluation is co :pleted by the LicennicS staf f at t.M same time for all units.
An application for operating license was filed by the D 2! e Power Co.
l in June 1969, for Oconcee Units 1, 2, and 3.
Accordin; to the Lh.en--
]
sing staff, the ACRS review of Duke's applicatio: was conplned sicul-I taneously for all three(3) units; however, since Unit 1 v.ts near completion, the ACRS decided to furnish their report (9/22/70).ut Unit 1 only (copy attached). On August 11, 1973, the ACRs comp 1.: tad their review of the application for Units 2 and 3, and furnished their report to the Commission on August 14, 1973 (copy attachad).
1 The safety evaluation conducted by the Licensing staff on 12/29/70, considered all three(3) Oconee units; however, tha Safety Evalution Report addressed itself only to Unit 1, since that vuit was near completion. The attached preface to the July 6, 1973, Safety Evalua-tion Report on Units 2 and 3 states that considerable supplemental revicu and evaluation was performed by the Licensing staf f on Unite 2 &
3; though much of the original review of 12/70 renained applicable.
In Licensing's notification to the Business Management Branch regarding the scheduled proposed issuance of an operating license for Unit 2, ue were advised initially (03/30) that Unit 2 was part of a concurrent review. Later, on 9/21, Licensing advised that Unit 2 was not concurrent with Unit 1, and finally on 9/27/73, we were adviced that Unit 2 van part of a concurrent review. Licensing's argumant for the concurrent review is that Duke Power Co. filed a single application for the operating licenses for the three units, and that the ACRS review and Safety Evaluation were essentially completed at the same time for all three units, even though the initial safety evaluation and ACRS report dealt only with Unit 1.
(Supplemental reports by ACRS and the Licensing staff were done at a later date (1973) for Units 2 and 3);
Question: Should the operating license fee for Oconee 2 be based on a concurrent licensing review.
h f33.l dweww.e9Y a(- *!,
$L
/
Allen S bell
\\
g d9 Business Management Branch em I'adON I g y3 g
's
't.j
's
's 1*
W
- 1 i
l 1
- )
l' il ilaa V
'l..
P, I
f1E!AD ROUTE SLIP l_.
_[rI ':t'om
~
5** 'a'
- tout th's-
' a' ca S"' r = *-
r,. _i an c_,3 in... M.y i4. i9473 4 ten o24o
-l n o.. e,,,,,,.
r., c,,,.or,.
,. wo,.n.e:r.
p
_TO d.ame and halt)
INITIALS PLVAMKs 6
(q (Oconce 2) u care
,4* N r
f g
10 (Nares and kMt) 8%ITI A.$
FD A.us F
E g
OGC_azreed (orally) that the fee for Oconee 2 o
i' can should be based on the concurrent liccasin;; ravic w j
since (1) review of the appl. for OL by ACRS unc to tuore..no unit 3 n.iriats awrao y
done for all three (3) units sieultaneously, (2)
L2 the safety review by Licensing was also done for ean l'il y
the units at the same time, even though the Safety
!j rnou in.m.an4 = nit 3 et=ancs j
0 g fgf(/
Evaluation report on Unit 2 was not coapleted unts
[,
Allen Cabell
- 1 later, and (3) the later reviews done by ACRS and BMB g
Licensing did not require initiating a whole new II PN3NT fc C4TE ll 10/2 review Process.
use cinta ses eon acomo==L raum.s t
,, 3. i v.
o.....,
n h
I, I-0Qh
^
tl 6
I
l l
/
i 9/2.N,W1 Oconee 2 269 Per conversation with 1. Peltier (Project Manna.er for Ocone-2), he stated that the ACRS review for Units 1, 2, and 3, seas donc al th;' ma tir.,e f e -
all three units; however, since Unit 1 uns the only unit tw:dy rudy Io; operation, the ACRS decided to furnish their letter (repart) ei; Ur.it i
only.
The supplemental evaluation done for Units 2 and 3 considered "nr.r things" that were learned during the operation of Unit 1.......but nevertheless, th major portion of the safety review was completed coreurrently with I' nit L.
i Allen Cabell
\\$
\\
DJ
- ~..--'_.--___-.-.....,....~.....,......_..._.
- %,. g.
(
P:tEFACE Prior to issuing Safety Evalt.ation by tba Divi.niva of Entor Licensing, U. S. Atocic Energv Cocaission, In th e Ma t te r o f ';h
' Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station. Docket No. _50-269 on December 29 1970, the Division of Reactor Licensing (no.i the Directorace of Licensing) perfor=ed a safety evaluation which considered all three Oconee reactors (Units 1, 2 and 3).
Because the status of facility construction varranted only consideration of Ococae Unit _L for en operating license at that time, the December 29, 1970 Safe ty Evaltutiu-Report addressed only Unit 1.
Although considerable supplemental
. = = _ - -
gview and evaluation was performed by the Directorate of Licensing i
on Units 2 and 3, cuch of the original review remained applicable to these two units.
For this reason this Safety Evaluation Report for Units 2 and 3 was prepared in the same fori. cat as the Dececher 29, 1970 document to facilitate referencin areas of review, evaluation and o
conclusions mutually applicable to all three reactor units.
S gm 7
.g:q l 3
1
' q;t.' '
[
.s 4 *f b,
1-1
?
i g
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION t
f The Dthe Power Company (applicant), by application dat.ed Noverber 28, 1966, and as subsequently amended, requested a lice s I
(
na to construct and operate three pressurized water reactors i
, 3dentified ij
.s Units 1, 2, ' and 3 at its Oconee Nuclear Station in Ocon2e Coun 3
The Atomic Energy Co::iission (AEC) reported the results.
5 of its review prior to construction in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated August 4,1967.
s Following a public hearing before an Atonic 3
fafety and Licensing Board in Walhalla, South R rolina
, ort August 29-30, j
1967 and September 12, 1967, the Director of Reactor Licensing issued j
Provisional Construction Permits CPPR-33, 34, and 35 for Units 1
~
2, and 3, respectively, on November 6, 1967.
l On June 2,1969, the applicant filed, as Amendeent 7 the Final h
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) required by Section 50.34(b) of Chapter A
j I
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as a prerequisite to obtai
?
I.
k an operating license for each unit.
4 The AEC regulatory staff (staff) review of the FSAR, as amended I
i
[
k, considered all three units of the Oconee Nuclear Station.
- However, Unit 1 was the only unit whose state of completion warranted issua 1
5 nce of.an operating license at that time and the SER for Unit I was pub-lished December 29, 1970.
In the course of this early review of the material submitted i
, the
' staff held a number of meetings with representatives of the appli cant; hg.
- j...
a
(
,1
/
l-2 i
~
'I the nuclear steam supplier, the Babcock & Wilcox Company (30W); and c
the designer of the reactor containment building, tha Ecchtel Corpur-ation; to discuss the plant design and construction and the propened operation. A chronology of the staff reviev uhich resulted in tha licensing of Oconee Unit 1 for operation is presented in Appendix A of tha Ocenec Unit 1 SER.
l
]
In addition, the AEC Advisory Cozoittee on Reactor Safeguards l
(ACRS) considered this project and met with both the applicant and l
the staff to discuss it.
The report of the ACRS, dated September 23, 1970, is included as Appendix B to the Oconee Unit 1 SER.
Also included as Appendices to the Oconee Unit 1 SER are reports by the staff consultants on meteorology, hydrology, ecological (Fish j
and Wildlife) considerations and seismic design and a staff financial analysis.
Since the original regulatory staff review of. 0conee Unit 1, a supplemental review of the plant energency core cooling systems was performed La accordance with the criteria described in an Interim Folicy Statement issued on June 25, 1971, and published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 29,1971 (36 F.R.12247). The safety evaluation based upon this review was issued March 24,.1972, as Supplement No. 1 to the Oconee Unit 1 SER. The safety evaluation and conclusions presented in Supplement No.1 are applicable to Oconee 2 and 3.
In March 1972, the Oconee Unit 1 suffered damage to the steam generators and reactor vessel internals requiring significant design l