ML19347A832
| ML19347A832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1980 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009300332 | |
| Download: ML19347A832 (6) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
b g
,.,),
UNITED STATES y,
y'
.s /g,g NLICLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A'J C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
RP i 61980
%, ' *...../
Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 APPLICANT:
Consumers Power Company FACILITY:
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 25. 1980 MEETING ON LICENSING STATUS OF THE MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 On August 25, 1980 management personnel from Consumers Power Company (the applicant) and the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland to review briefly the potential timing and methods for resuming the NRC's formal docket review of the Midland Plant application. This was a followup meeting to that of June 13, 1980 during which the need of preparations for resumption of the review and the need for efficiencies in the review process were recognized.
The Midland OL review has been suspended since the March 28, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
The meeting duration was two hours.
On the basis of its latest (forecast #6) completed construction schedules which reflect changes due to TMI-2 requirements, NRC open issues and other construction matters, the applicant noted that licensing could delay the scheduled fuel load unless the NRC resumes full review of the OL application immediately. This is illustrated.by the applicants enclosed proposed licens-ing schedule.
The applicant's schedule for Unit 2 calls for a July 1983 fuel load and December 1983 comercial operation.
For Unit 1, the corresponding dates are December 1983 and July 1984 (electrical and steam).
The staff noted that the July 29, 1980 visit by the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel and a followup meeting on August 22, 1980 resulted in a finding of reasonable agree-ment with the applicant's projected construction completion estimates; the Panel's projected dates are about three months later.
The staff intends to prepare and process a licensing schedule change request on the basis of the Panel's revised estimates; however, such processing will recognize the staff's overall workload priorities and resources and the processed result may not necessarily coincide with the construction completion dates.
The applicant described a review plan emphasizing the full use of previously completed review efforts and the use of proposed guidelines to determine whether repeated or reopened staff reviews of particular questions and other potential new requirements would provide substantial additional protection to public health and safety. The staff rejected these proposed guidelines and noted that any procedures for the conduct of staff review must be left entirely to the NRC as a matter of NRC administrative policy.
f.
8009300 3W2
[
. dEP L o FAi>
The NRC Director of NRR, Mr. H. Denton, reviewed previous trial approaches which have provided for efficient use of staff resources in the review prc-cess. This included the approach used on Palo Verde in which the Utility utilized outside consultants to supplement its internal reviews of its sys-tems to meet the Commission's regulations, and in which the NRC staff parti-cipated in the applicant's internal meetings. The approach used on Susque-hanna for the seismic qualification review by the NRC was also cited as an example of review efficiency. Mr. Denton stated that the Palo Verde results, in particular, were most encouraging, and that the NRC would be willing to participate in a similar approat h for Midland. Mr. Selby of Consumers Power Company replied that this approach would be examined further, but noted that the success of this or any other approach would be doubtful unless a sus-tained core of staff reviewers can be assigned to the project through review completion, particularily in the reactor systems and electrical systems branches.
Mr. Denton also noted that current FSARs and PSARs are deficient in their explicit display of conformance to each of the Commission's rules and regu-lations of significance to safety. The staff will require explicit documen-tation in the Midland FSAR upon which to base its conclusions pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1) and (2).
g g.s r, h D. S. Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page I
4 v
Mr. J. W. Ccok Vice President Consun:ers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Managing Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza
. Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Attorney General
. State of Michigan Environmental.
Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota. 55108
-0 # '"
~D R 'g Q ~'h{lfg wilu. b u d 4 j
od e
-I Mr. J. W. Cook' cc: Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief Division of Radiological Health Department of Public Health j.
P. O. Box 33035 Lansing, Michigan 46909 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 i
Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, Mic.kigan 48623 Ms. Sharon K. Warren 636 Hillcrest Midland, Michigan 48640 9
t 0
I I
s.
ENCLOSURE 1 1
i MEETING ATTENDEES August 25, 1980 i
CPCo i
J. Selby S. Howell J. Cook J. Sullivan 1
NR_C H. Denton l
D. Eisenhut R. Tedesco A. Schwencer D. Hood W. Olmstead B. Jones W. Lovelace i
I I
s i
,r_
,,-.-..,..e e.,v m-e r-
-9 3-.
,-v,--e4
~
j i
I DiCLOSURE 2 1
FIGURE 1.3-1 IICENSING SCHEDULE FOR THE MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT (p,o,.sni h, Co.se-ra, Pc ~ < > cc y. ~ y)
COMPLETE OPERATING ISSUE PRE-HEARING O.L.
LICENSE SER CONFERENCE HEARING ISSUANCE i
9/81 1/82 2/83 7/83 i
i RESUME COMPLETE FSAR FSAR SER ISSUE START O.L.
ASLB DOCKETED REVIEW INPUT SSER HEARING DECISION 11/77 7/80 7/81 12/81 2/82 6/83 i
I 32 12 2
3 1'1 '
12 4
1
/
mos mos mos mos mo mo mos mos mo em 26 (9/8i) l (12/81) 1 l
\\.
--