ML20003C375
| ML20003C375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, 05000514, 05000515, 05000471, 05000467, Allens Creek, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Perkins, Skagit, Black Fox, Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102280289 | |
| Download: ML20003C375 (7) | |
Text
TfL4' p?* *%<,%
UNITED STATES v
8,_
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
~E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%......o FEB 9 1531 PEM0PANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne FR0ft:
Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation (Sign 20 r!!';ha [ Dirt (
THRU:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
~
SUBJECT:
PROJECTED TARGET SCHEDULES FOR PENDING CP APPLICATIONS The enclosed is in respont,e to your recent reouest on the subject matter.
crgmt tipad by 1:.3 Dates Harold P,. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford OPE OGC SECY e'A,
p
(?[If k
- A-i f dh 9.
FEB121981m b E' "' % g g r m Ul.j 1G
~
L8102 28 0 2 8 9
Licensing Schedules for Pending Construction Permit Applications The staff has continued its effort to propose the manner and extent to which the TMI Action Plan should be applied to pending CP applications.
The staff has assessed the public comments received and has developed a proposed revision oof NUREG-0718, Proposed Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License.
The staff met with the ACRS and presented staff recommendations to the Commission (Policy Paper SECY in January 1981.
At the request of one construction permit applicant, further discussion with the ACRS and the Commission has been scheduled in February.
Following a Commission decision on the staff recommendations, further case-s action to include TMI-related requirements can be undertaken for the pending CP applications..
A schedule for -issuance of construction permits for pending CP applications based on the NUREG-0718 is difficult to predict at this tine. This difficulty arises from two major factors.
First, the schedule for applicant submittals of TMI-related of PSAR amendments is not known with certainty.
Second, each of the near-term / construction permit applications must complete the hearing process and the nature of the contentions that will be considered in the hearings as.a result of TMI is not yet clear.
Both of these factors are heavily dependent on the scope off the TMI-related requirements.
ll 3
. NRR has developed a plan to resume the review of construction permits and manufacturing license applications dealing with non-TMI items that have been outstanding for some time and in some cases are delaying hearings. At this time, there are six construction permit applications (11 units) and one manufacturing license (8 units) pending. The pending construction permit applications are (1) Allens Creek Nuclear Station, (2) Black Fox Nuclear Station, (3) Pilgrim Unit 2 Nuclear Station (4) Pebble Springs Nuclear Station, (5)
Perkins Nuclear Station, and (6) Skagit Nuclear Station.
The pending manufactur-ing license application is the Floating Nuclear Plant.
The first four construction permits (on the above list) and the manufacturing license applications are to be given priority, since the Skagit Plant is being relocated to a new site and the applicant for the Perkins Plant has withdrawn his _ financial comitment to the project. We anticipate that these latter two-reviews will not be resumed until late 1981 at the earliest.
The status of the first four CP and one ML applications with respect to non-TMI issues is as follows:
Allens Creek - A second supplement to the Allens Creek FES regarding the issues of alternative sites and transportation of the reactor vessel to the site was issued in December 1980. The hearing on environmental issues resumed on January 12, 1981. Testimony on selected non-TMI safety issues is to be
- prepared by May 31, 1981 and it is anticipated that the safety. hearings on these matters will resume in early July 1981.
. Pilgrim 2 - All non-TMI issues were closed, environmental and safety hearings we e held.
The ASLB issued a partial initial decision on February 2,1981 on all' issues except TMI-2 issues and emergency planning.
Black Fox 1 and 2 - All non-TMI environmental and safety issues are complete.
An LWA-1 was issued on July 26, 1978. Safety hearings were completed on February 28, 1979. Motion to reopen safety hearings to address the impact of TMI requirements is pending.
Pebble Springs 1 and 2 - The applicant has indicated that he desires to go forward with the completion of the environmental and site suitability rt. view at this time.
Staff effort is underway to close out alternative sites, Table S-3, Appendix I and Class 9 accident considerations. Testimony on environmental-issues (including alternative sites) is in preparation and is expected to be submitted to the ASLB in June 1981. Hearings on these environmental matters will resume shortly thereafter. However, the applicant has not. provided the necessary input to evaluate the need for power and alternative energy sources.
Thus the environmental record will remain open on these issues. The two remaining ~non-TMI safety issues. (unresolved safety issues and cold shutdown using only safety-grade systems) will be considered in the preparation of the TMI supplements to the SER.
FNP l Only TMI-related issues are pending before ASLB's.
Using the following assumptions, projected target schedules for the four pending CP's and one ML~can be made:
(1)- Connission approval of NTCP TMI requirements effective - March 1981
.(2)l-CP/ML applicants provide PSAR ' amendments to address TMI-requirements as follows:
3 by April, 2 by June. -
s
. (3) NRC scaff prepares TMI SSERs in 60 days following receipt of last necessary information on TMI-issues.
To accomplish this very short review schedule, the staff will be utilizing some form of special review process.
- (4) ACRS meetings, 30 days after SSERs issued.
(5) NRC staff prepares Supplemental SER subsequent to ACRS in 30 days.
-The enclosed schedules to the near-term CP's reflects the above discussions.
It should be noted that the pacing items for these schedules is the issuance of Commission approved NTCP requirements in March 1981 and applicant PSAR submittals.
In addition, while limited resources are available to resume CP application reviews in FY 1981, the uncertain scope of TMI-related contentions to be dealt with in forthcoming hearings may. result in the need for resource expenditures in excess of those allocated.
In such instances, available resources will be allocated in the following priority order: First, to operating reactors, second to operating licerse reviews and third to construction permit reviews.
Selection of priorities would depend upon the responsiveness of the applicants in providing the required information.
-*Due to significant ACRS' involvement and interest in the developnent of the NTCP requirements, it-appears prudent to assume plant specific ACRS meetings on
- each pending CP1will result.
In addition, the Regulations require the ACRS to review each CP application.
-~
_. -. ~.. -
r.
i j
J i '
TABLE 1 4
NOTE The attached table assumes staff SERs issued sequentially, one per month, starting in June-1981. The ordering of these plants t-may change an' will be based _'on suc'h prioritization factors as d
. status: of plant hearings', amount and dates of input information, etc.
?
1 4
'a 4
4 4
.q.
'~
7
\\
d 1
b I
1 s'.3.
f '
I$
=
k v 3
.,e
,,v.,.<
.,--r,
. ~,..,-..o-r._,,-a,e,..me.--,.
,,,....<.,..,.~<..w,,,
e,-4,
,m4._.-.le,r
gr x
y STATUS AND PROJECTED TARGET SCHEDULES FOR PENDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS e
Latest non-Hearing Hearing (4)
PLANTJ PSAR ER SER ACRS TMI SSER FES non-TMI non-TMI TMI ACRS TMI
)
Docketed' Docketed Mt9 Start End SER TMI SSER f
Allens. Creek 1 12/73C 12/73C 11/74C L2/74C 33/79C 12/80C 01/81C 09/81 07/81 08/81 09/81 Black Fox 1 & 2 12/75C 12/75C.
06/77C 36/77C 33/79C 02/77C 08/77C 02/79C 08/81 09/81 10/81
' Pebble Springs'l a 2 10/74C 08/74C 01/76C 32/76C 35/78C 04/75G 15/78C (1) 09/81 10/81 11/81 P;rkins 1-3 05/74C 06/74C 03/77C 34/77C 37/77C 10/75C ll/75C 02/79C (2)
(2)
(2)
Pilgrim 2 12/73C 12/73C 06/75C 11/75C 01/79C 10/75C
[0/75C 08/79C 06/81 07/81 08/81 t
Skagit 1 & 2 01/75C 09/74C 08/77C 11/77C 10/78C 06/75C 37/75C (3)'
(3)
(3)
(3)
FNP 1-8 07/73C 07/73C 08/75C Series 02/80C 10/75C 06/76C 10/79C 10/81 11/81 12/31 (1)~ Seismic issues delayed safety review.
supplement on this matter.
Alternative site review based on the Seabrook decision resulted in FES need-for-power, and alternative site matters are pendin9 Hearings not concluded; in addition to TM1-2 iss Site Certification by State is not complete.
'(2) Motion was filed to reopen to consider TMI-2 issues.
been made by them on the construction of Units 1, 2 and 3. Applicant indicated in July 1979 that no final decision has (3)
As a result of field explorations conducted by USGS, the seismic design of the facility must be reexamined Applicants indicated in September 1980 that proposed facility to be relocated to site on the Hanford
~
reservation. Amended ER and PSAR will be filed in September 1981.
',(4) zSchedules shown are based on preliminary estimates of when PSA". amendments will be filed.
..