ML19329B780
| ML19329B780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1978 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002060811 | |
| Download: ML19329B780 (7) | |
Text
__
[
UNITED STATES 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I*~
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 2066E
[
L O -
/g AUG 1 G 1978
\\**w go.39 6 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
John F. Stolz, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No.1, Division of Project Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SumARY OF MEETING WITH APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCHEDULE MATTERS At the request of Mr. Harold Denton, Director, NRR, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland on August 10, 1978 with the group of applicants identi-fied in Enclosure 1.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss review schedule matters and staff resources. This was the third of three such meetings. The first meeting, with a group of applicants consisting largely of thc;e with operating license applications which are currently receiving the highest priority, was held on August 1,1978, and is summarized in D. B. Vassallo's memorandum to you dated August 4,1978. The second meeting, with another group of applicants consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving somewhat less priority than those of the first group, was held on August 9,1978 and is summarized in John F. Stolz' memorandum to you dated August
,1978.
~
This third meeting was with yet another group of applicants consisting largely of those with construction permit applications.
Mr. Denton opened the meeting 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 completion and fuel loading dates.
Mr. Denton explained that the staff's primary interest in these dates is to establish priority of review to meet the staff's commitment of completing the operating license review by the fuel loading date (i.e., the date construction of the facility has been completed in accordance with the application).
Mr. Denton explained that in order to provide the staff with realistic construction completion dates, we have utilized the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel. The Forecast Panel, assisted by NRR Project Managers and Inspection and Enforcement Inspectors, has made numerous visits to plant sites to discuss schedular matters with utilities and attempt to independently arrive at a construction completion date. Mr. Denton said that because in many cases there was a disparity between the Forecast Panel's projection and that of the utility, he has found some utility concern with the staff's attempt to ff M S00209 b
EI Harold R. Denton establish construction completion dates. Many of the utility representatives present indicated some apprehension in having the staff develop these dates and publish them because there are many other considerations 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 means for appealing the construction completion dates developed by the Forecast Panel.
Mr. Denton stated that we need information such as that developed by the Forecast Panel to establish a priority review list since we have to allocate the availaDie staff resources to higher priority reviews. Mr. Denton pointed out that although we anticipate some increase in the size of the staff in Fiscal fear 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 with the objective of preventing delay of staff review beyond the scheduled fuel loading date. Copies of the staff's current priority listing for case work (Enclosure 2) were distributed to the participants. Mr. Denton stated that he recognized that this was an early attempt at listing the priorities, but had called this meeting to share with the utilities tne 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 staff 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 months in advance, consistent with the Division of Project "lanagement's priority. He explained how this is broken down to establish how each 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 which 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 comon problems which seem to be delaying operating license reviews and suggested that the applicants singly or collectively put more effort into resolving these matters. Some of the issues which were used as examples are environ-mental qualification of safety equipment, asymmetric loads and computer protection systems. The staff explained that around 1975, DSS needed about 500 man days to review an operating license application.
Since the issuance
Harold R. Denton AU G 1 6 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 staff review required 2400 man days, tne main reason being the complexity of the core protection calculator system review.
Mr. Denton explained that the staff 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 complate and responsive.
j He also suggested, as an example, that applicants could help in reducing the staff's equipment qualification audit effort by performing their own independent audit prior to submittal for staff review to further assure that the equipment has been properly qualified.
Mr. Denton pointed out that the first two groups of applicants, which con-i sisted largely of those with operating license applications, had generally agreed that scheduled fuel load dates should be retained as the primary basis for establishing priorities. Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present went on to explain that in the case of construction permit applications, priorities are primarily established by the Directors of OSS and UPM considering such factors as the potential for public hearings adversely iapacting the construction schedule, as weil as the scheduied fuel load date.
Mr. Uenton then suggested that the industry participants might wisn to reflect on how they could assist in establishing review priorities or other means for improving the licensing process and later submit written comments.
Mr. Denton indicated that we would await the views of all three groups of 1
applicants before attempting to establish any different method for setting review priorities. He further indicated that we expect to issue a revised priority list in September and to update the list at, possibly, three-month intervals.
Mr. Denton indicated that we are considerir.9 making the Blue dock available to the public, although some modifications might have to be made to it to make it uore understandaole. While the utility representatives present generally agreed that receiving copies of the Blue Book schedules would be very helpful, several expressed apprehension about difficulties in pre-liminary judgements regarding issues and schedules that potentially may adversely affect their utilities' positions in the stock or bond aarkets.
y y
,----e me-
~
g
~%
Harold R. Denton 4-AVG 16 MW8 Mr. Denton 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.
kUL John F. Stolz, Chief Lfght Water Reactor (Branch No.1 Uivision of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
Attendance List t
2.
Staff's Current Priority Listing for Case Work cc w/ enclosures:
Attendees a+
~<.
m--
ENCLOSURE 1 UTILITY MEETING WITH H. DENTON ON SCHEDULING AUGUST 10, 1978 NRC H. Denton R. Boyd D. Muller R. DeYoung i
J. Stolz C. Thomas UTILITIES Vaughn L. Conrad Public Service of Oklahoma Frank J. Meyer Public Service of Oklahoma William E. Barberich Pennsylvania Power & Light James E. Mecca Puget Sound Power & Light Warren J. Ferguson Puget Sound Power & Light John L. Frewing Portland General Electric Wm. J. Lindblad Portland General Electric H. Lorenz Gilbert / Commonwealth C. D. Williams Gilbert / Commonwealth B. M. Miller Ohio Edison Co.
E. C. Novak Toledo Edison Co.
L. E. Roe Toledo Edison j
J. Harrington New England Power Co.
J. Stevens New England Power Co.
W. J. L. Kennedy Stone & Webster Eng. Corp.
R. T. Schomer Power Authority of the State of N.Y.
S. B. Jacobs Stone & Webster Eng. Corp.
C. Reed Commonwealth Edison N. W. Curtis Pennsylvania Power & Light
m g
ENCLOSURE 2 LWR PRIORITY LISTING - CASEWORK Priority Case Next Eve,nt 1
Davis Besse 1 Operating plants still under Cook 2 cognizance of LWR.
North Anna 1 TMI-2 Hatch-2 2
ANO-2 OL 3
Diablo Canyon l&2 SER Supplement 4
McGuire Hearing i
5 Shoreham SER 6
Zimmer SER 7
Sequoyah SER 8
Salem 2 SER 9
San Onofre 283 SER 10 Midland Q2 11 Allens Creek SER 12 New England 182 ACRS 13 RESAR-414 ACRS 14 Davis Besse 2&3 nCRS 15 Erie 1&2 ACRS 16 LaSalle Q2 17 Watts Bar Q2 18 Summer Q2 19 Fe rmi-2 Q1 20 SWESSAR/BSAR-205 SER 21 BOPSSAR Rev.
Q1 22 Farley 2 N/S 23 Palo Verde 4&S N/S 24 GIBBSAR Q1 25 Haven N/S 26 WPPSS 2 N/S 27 Susquehanna 1&2 N/S 28 Grand Gulf 152 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 34 AGS Hold 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 sccpe.
Pebble Springs l&2 Skagit Black Fox 1&2 Yellow Creek Greene County FNP y.m,_
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION entral Files f C - 3 V b J. Knight NRC PDR D. Ross LDCAL PORs of Utilities R. Tedesco NRR Readin9 Involved R. Bosnak H. Denton S. Pawlicki E. Case
- 1. Sihweil R. Boyd K. Kniel R. DeYoung T. Novak D. Vassallo
- 2. Rosztoczy D. Skovholt W. Butler W. Gammill V. Benaroya J. Stolz Chief, ICSB R. Baer V. Moore
- 0. Parr R. Vollmer S. Varga M. Ernst W. Haass F. Rosa R. Houston EP Branch Chief L. Crocker D. Bunch D. Crutchfield J. Collins F. Williams W. Kreger R. Mattson G. Lear D. Muller B. Youngblood M. Grossman J. Stepp IE (7)
L. Hulman ACRS (16)
C. Heltemes L. Rubenstein TIC R. Denise Utility Attendees (see list)
C. Thomas S. Kari H. Berkow i
.