ML19338C397

Confirms Comments & Commitments Made During Recent Conversations Re OL Application.Special Attention Paid to Licensing Reviews & Maintaining Cognizance of NRC Licensing Reviews of Other BWR Plants

ML19338C397
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	08/11/1980
From:	Koch L ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8008150353
Download: ML19338C397 (3)

Text

e 9

/LLINO/S POWER COMPANY 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, DECATUR, ILLINOIS 62525 August 11, 1980 Dr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Dr. Denton:

Clinton Power Station Operating License Review Docket Nos. 50-461 and 50-462 This letter will confirm some of the comments and commitments which I made to you during our recent conversations. They relate to the operating license application for the Clinton Power Station submitted to the NRC by Illinois Power Company in December 1979.

The primary thrust of these conversations involved the need to accelerate the Clinton license review and the incentive for IPC to take the initiative to simplify the review process where possible.

We understand that the Clinton application will be docketed in the very near future. Therefore, we believe that it would be beneficial to both NRC and IPC to begin formulating definitive ,

plans for the Clinton licensing review.

We recognize the additional burdens which have been placed on the NRC Staff as the result of the TMI accident and the need to most efficiently utilize NRC resources. In recognition of these conditions, we have made and are continuing to make a detailed evaluation of the licensing process with the intent of identifying specific segments of that process where we can take actions to reduce the demands on NRC resources. We believe we have identified areas where such opportunities exist. In general, they fall in two major categories:

1. Those parts of the Clinton application which are not unique and which the NRC Staff has previously reviewed on other dockets, and

2. Those parts of the Clinton application which are unique and which the NRC Staff has not previously reviewed.

B*/s 8008150353 //o

-. . - ._ . _- = . __-

a I

Dr. Harold R. Denton August 11, 1980 In the first case, we believe that we can identify in detail the Clinton FSAR information which the NRC Staff has approved on other dockets. This should avnid the need for the Staff to review i

the same material again. In the second case, we believe that we can not only identify new material for the Staff, but we can also 4

provide additional information and improve means of communication

to assist the Staff in their efficient review and evaluation of this material. In other word;, we can " codify" the Clinton applica-tion in such a way as to assist the Staff in identifying those parts of the application which merit their primary attention. -

Our review of the Clintca application has proceeded to the stage where we can identify several chapters of the Clinton FSAR where material has already been reviewed by the Staff on previous dockets and the docket on which the review was made. This should enable the Staff to significantly reduce the time which will be required to review these chapters.

1 l Similarly, we believe that there are at least three chapters which contain significant amounts of new material and information which the Staff has not seen nreviously. Much of this material also -

represents technological advances in our industry which will be of particular interest to the. Staff. This information deserves special attention and we wouli propose to give it such attention.

A third area which we ar giving special attention involves licensing reviews which are proceeding ahead of us. We are main-i taining cognizance of the NRC licensing reviews of other BWR's with t

particular a,ttention to the Grand Gulf application which is also a BWR-6/ Mark III (although a larger size). We believe that we can respond in a timely manner to all of the Grand Gulf Round 1 questions and thereby avoid the necessity for a similar round of questions i for Clinton. We will identify where the responses to the Grand Gulf questions appear in the Clinton FSAR which will simplify the l Staff review of our responses. Our objective, of course, is to i

place the Clinton review on a schedule which permits moving directly to the Round 2 issues. This vould serve to minimize the demands on the NRC Staff and could significantly shorten the licensing i schedule without reducing the ,uality of the review.

The required numoer of. copies of the application documents have been prepared and are backed, ready for shipment to the NRC.

They will be shipped immediately upon notification of docketing I

and the normal request for these copies. Shortly thereafter, we will request meetings with you and your Staff to make specific

_ _ _ -- - . _ ~ _

Dr. Harold R. Denton August 11, 1980 detailed proposals for proceeding with the Clinton licensing review in accordance with the general outline described above. We will be prepared to discuss with you and your Staff in detail how we propose to proceed and to incoroorate other improvements which you may wish to succest. We will be in contact with you shortly after docketing to establish a schedule for these meetings.

We are quite enthusiastic about the possibility of reducing the time and effort which are now required of the NRC and the licensee in the present licensing process. We believe that a real potential exists and that we will have some productive recommenda-tions to make. We are quite willing to serve as a "model" in this undertaking and to be innovative in a joint effort which can con-tribute to the utilization of our collective licensing resources more effectively. We have received commitments from General Electric Company and Sargent & Lundy Engineers to participate aggressively in this effort.

We are encouraged by the knowledge that you are giving much

! consideration to improving the licensing process. We would be very pleased to work with you to accomplish this objective and to demonstrate that licensing can be accomplished more effectively without sacrifice of the quality of the license.

Sincerely, L. . Koch Vice President cc: Walter R. Smith, President Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc.

Lester W. Aeilts, President Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.

_ . , - - - _